This report is dedicated to Roland Algrant, a compassionate
and wise human rights activist who died on December 19, 2007. One of the
founders of Human Rights Watch, he served for many years as the vice-chair of
the Advisory Committee of the Human Rights Watch Children's Rights Division. In
2005 Mr. Algrant's friends created the Roland Algrant Summer Internship program
in his honor. The first Roland Algrant Summer Intern, Christine Back,
took part in the research and writing of this report.

This report would not have been possible without the
compassion, insight, and generous support of Wendy and Barry Meyer.

Summary

"When I die, that's
when they'll send me home."

Approximately 227 youth have been sentenced to die in California's prisons.[1]
They have not been sentenced to death: the death penalty was found
unconstitutional for juveniles by the United States Supreme Court in 2005.
Instead, these young people have been sentenced to prison for the rest of their
lives, with no opportunity for parole and no chance for release. Their crimes
were committed when they were teenagers, yet they will die in prison.
Remarkably, many of the adults who were codefendants and took part in their
crimes received lower sentences and will one day be released from prison.

In the United States at least 2,380 people are serving life
without parole for crimes they committed when they were under the age of 18. In
the rest of the world, just seven people are known to be serving this sentence
for crimes committed when they were juveniles. Although ten other countries
have laws permitting life without parole, in practice most do not use the
sentence for those under age 18. International law prohibits the use of life
without parole for those who are not yet 18 years old. The United States is in violation of those laws and out of step with the rest of the world.

Human Rights Watch conducted research in California on the
sentencing of youth offenders to life without parole. Our data includes records
obtained from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and
independent research using court and media sources. We conducted a survey that
garnered 130 responses, more than half of all youth offenders serving life
without parole in California. Finally, we conducted in-person interviews of
about 10 percent of those serving life without parole for crimes committed as
youth. We have basic information on every person serving the sentence in the
state, and we have a range of additional information in over 170 of all known
cases. This research paints a detailed picture of Californians serving life
without parole for crimes committed as youth.

In California, the vast majority of those 17 years old and
younger sentenced to life without the possibility of parole were convicted of
murder. This general category for individuals' crimes, however, does not tell
the whole story. It is likely that the average Californian believes this harsh
sentence is reserved for the worst of the worst: the worst crimes committed by
the most unredeemable criminals. This, however, is not always the case. Human
Rights Watch's research in California and across the country has found that
youth are sentenced to life without parole for a wide range of crimes and
culpability. In 2005 Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch published a
report showing that nationally 59 percent of youth sentenced to life without
parole are first-time offenders, without a single juvenile court adjudication
on their records.

In 2007, Human Rights Watch surveyed youth offenders serving
life without parole in California. In 45 percent of cases surveyed, youth who
had been sentenced to life without parole had not actually committed the
murder. Cases include that of a youth who stood by the garage door as a
look-out during a car theft, a youth who sat in the get-away car during a
burglary, and a youth who participated in a robbery in which murder was not
part of the plan. Forty-five percent of youth reported that they were held
legally responsible for a murder committed by someone else. He or she may have
participated in a felony, such as robbery, but had no idea a murder would
happen. She or he may have aided and abetted a crime, but not been the trigger
person. While they are criminally culpable, their actions certainly do not fall
into the category of the worst crimes.

Murder is a horrible crime, causing a ripple-effect of pain
and suffering well beyond that of the victim. Families, friends, and
communities all suffer. The fact that the perpetrator is legally a child does
nothing to alleviate the loss. But societies make decisions about what to weigh
when determining culpability. California's law as it stands now fails to take
into consideration a person's legal status as a child at the time of the crime.
Those who cannot buy cigarettes or alcohol, sign a rental agreement, or vote
are nevertheless considered culpable to the same degree as an adult when they
commit certain crimes and face adult penalties. Many feel life without parole
is the equivalent of a death sentence. "They said a kid can't get the death
penalty, but life without, it's the same thing. I'm condemned…I don't
understand the difference," said Robert D., now 32 years of age, serving a life
without parole sentence for a crime he committed in high school. He
participated in a robbery in which his codefendant unexpectedly shot the
victim.

The California law permitting juveniles to be sentenced to
life without parole for murder was enacted in 1990. Since that time, advances
in neuroscience have found that adolescents and young adults continue to
develop in ways particularly relevant to assessing criminal behavior and an
individual's ability to be rehabilitated. Much of the focus on this relatively
new discovery has been on teenagers' limited comprehension of risk and
consequences, and the inability to act with adult-like volition. Just as
important, however, is the conclusion that teens are still developing. These
findings show that young offenders are particularly amenable to change and
rehabilitation. For most teens, risk-taking and criminal behavior is fleeting;
they cease with maturity. California's sentencing of youth to life without
parole allows no chance for a young person to change and to prove that change
has occurred.

In California, it is not just the law itself that is out of
step with international norms and scientific knowledge. The state's application
of the law is also unjust. Eighty-five percent of youth sentenced to life
without parole are people of color, with 75 percent of all cases in California being African American or Hispanic youth. African American youth are sentenced to
life without parole at a rate that is 18.3 times the rate for whites. Hispanic
youth in California are sentenced to life without parole at a rate that is five
times the rate of white youth in the state.

California has the worst record in the country for racially
disproportionate sentencing. In California, African American youth are
sentenced to life without parole at rates that suggest unequal treatment before
sentencing courts. This unequal treatment by sentencing courts cannot be
explained only by white and African American youths' differential involvement
in crime.

Significantly, many of these crimes are committed by youth
under an adult's influence. Based on survey responses and other case
information, we estimate that in nearly 70 percent of California cases, when
juveniles committed their crime with codefendants, at least one of these
codefendants was an adult. Acting under the influence and, in some cases, the
direction of an adult, however, cannot be considered a mitigating factor by the
sentencing judge in California. In fact, the opposite appears to be true.
Juveniles with an adult codefendant are typically more harshly treated than the
adult. In over half of the cases in which there was an adult codefendant, the
adult received a lower sentence than the juvenile.

Poor legal representation often compromises a just outcome in
juvenile life without parole cases. Many interviewees told us that they
participated in their legal proceedings with little understanding of what was
happening. "I didn't even know I got [life without parole] until I talked to my
lawyer after the hearing," one young man said. Furthermore, in nearly half the California cases surveyed, respondents to Human Rights Watch reported that their own
attorney did not ask the court for a lower sentence. In addition, attorneys
failed to prepare youth for sentencing and did not tell them that a family
member or other person could speak on their behalf at the sentencing hearing.
In 68 percent of cases, the sentencing hearings proceeded with no witness
speaking for the youth.

While some family members of victims support the sentence of
life without parole for juveniles, the perspective of victims is not
monolithic. Interviews with the families of victims who were murdered by teens
show the complex and multi-faceted beliefs of those most deeply affected. Some
families of victims believe that sentencing a young person to a sentence to
life without parole is immoral.

California's policy to lock up youth offenders for the rest
of their lives comes with a significant financial cost: the current juvenile
life without parole population will cost the state approximately half a billion
dollars by the end of their lives. This population and the resulting costs will
only grow as more youth are sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in
prison.

California is not the only state that sentences youth to
life without parole. Thirty-eight others apply the sentence as well. However,
movement to change these laws is occurring across the country. Legislative
efforts are pending in Florida, Illinois, and Michigan and there are grassroots
movements in Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, and Washington. Most
recently, Colorado outlawed life without parole for children in 2006.

If life without parole for youth under age 18 were
eliminated in California, other existing state law provides ample protection
for public safety. California's next harshest penalty for murder secures a
minimum of 25 years in prison. There are no reductions in the minimum time
served for a murder conviction. Even then, parole is merely an option and won
only through the prisoner's demonstrating rehabilitation. If they do earn
release after 25 years or more, they are statistically unlikely to commit a new
crime of any type. Prisoners released after serving a sentence for a murder
have the lowest recidivism rate of all prisoners.

Public awareness about this issue has increased recently
through newspaper and magazine articles and television coverage. With a
significant number of the country's juvenile life without parole cases in its
prisons, California has the opportunity to help lead the nation by taking
immediate steps to change this unnecessarily harsh sentencing law.

Methodology

This report is based on data from the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation obtained in April 2007, as well as Human
Rights Watch's media and court records searches, in-person interviews, and a
survey of people in California serving life without parole for crimes committed
under the age of 18.

Human Rights Watch made a Public Records Act request in June
2006 to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for
public records regarding juveniles sentenced to life without parole. The data
was provided to us in April 2007. The data from the CDCR includes name,
prisoner number, race, gender, birth date, date of offense, age at time of
offense, controlling county, and the facility where the individual was held at
the time. According to this data, 227 individuals who were under 18 at the time
of their crimes were sentenced to life without parole in California as of April
2007. All but four had been sentenced since 1990. Independent Human Rights
Watch research determined that three of the names provided by the CDCR were not
people serving life without parole, and four additional people who are not on
the CDCR list were also sentenced to life without parole for crimes they
committed as juveniles. These additional cases were found through interviews
and general internet searches. Given the inaccuracies in the data provided to
us by the CDCR we believe that there are likely additional youth offenders
serving life without parole who are not on the list.

In 2006 and 2007, Human Rights Watch researchers, pro bono
attorneys, and numerous volunteers used online legal and press resources to
research individual California cases. Based on media sources and online court
records, we found information pertaining to 173 of the 227 known cases.

In July 2007, Human Rights Watch sent a five-page survey to
all people on the CDCR's list. A copy of the survey is included here in Appendix
A. The survey permitted short narrative answers, and some respondents included
addendums with lengthy answers. The cover letter explained the survey's purpose
and informed recipients that their real name would not be used in published
materials and that there would be no personal gain from the information
provided.One hundred twenty-seven people responded to the survey,
representing more than 50 percent of the known population. The survey is five
pages long and asks questions in five sectors, including personal background,
information about the case, their experience of trial and sentencing,
conditions in prison, and their feelings. Several sample responses are included
in Appendix B.

Twenty-seven in-person interviews were conducted in California prisons, representing more than 10 percent of the California juvenile life
without parole population. All but one of the interviews were carried out by
Human Rights Watch researchers and volunteers; one was conducted by Patricia
Arthur, a Senior Attorney at the National Center for Youth Law. No incentives
were offered or provided to persons interviewed. Interviewees were assured of
confidentiality and gave a signed consent for their information to be used by
Human Rights Watch.

We conducted interviews in eight prisons, five in southern California and three in central or northern California. We selected interviewees based on
several factors. First, we chose people whose cases were at least four years
old to increase the likelihood that their appeals had concluded in order to
avoid potential interference with their cases. Second, we sought locations in
which there were several potential interviewees. We chose to conduct the
interviews at a number of locations in order to obtain a variety of experiences
and account for differences in inmate classification or specific prison
policies. We looked for a racial or ethnic mix of interviewees that would
provide a sample reflecting a racial makeup more or less similar to that of California's general population. Finally, where we had additional information about the
nature of the case, we sought to select individuals representing a variety of
cases.

Interviews were conducted at prisons, typically in a small
room located in the visiting area. Although the room had a window, the door was
closed for privacy. Some interviews took place in a large visiting room, and
the interviewer and subject sat in a corner, as much as possible out of earshot
of guards and other prisoners. In three cases, interviews were conducted through
glass, with the interviewee and interviewer talking over a telephone. In those
and one other case, interviewees had feet shackled and hands cuffed and locked
to a chain around their waists.

Interviews lasted from 30 minutes to three and a half hours.
In most cases there was one interviewer; in a few, two interviewers were
present. Just one prisoner was interviewed at a time.

Much of the data used in this report is self-reported. Human
Rights Watch did not have the resources necessary to obtain court records and
transcripts of trials, which would have provided substantial additional data to
that provided by survey respondents. California's criminal justice system is
county-based, and has 58 counties. Each case would require a request, in some
cases, in-person, for court records at the county courthouse where the case was
heard. Many court records are already in storage due to the age of the case.
Once records are obtained, a transcript of proceedings would have to be
commissioned.

However, Human Rights Watch's survey and interviews were set
up in ways to reduce the risk of informants providing misleading responses. For
example, the anonymity of the information decreased the chance that respondents
fabricated information for personal gain. Some questions were cross-checked for
accuracy. In addition, while varying in scope and depth, information collected
from other sources on over 170 of the 227 known cases of youth offenders
serving life without parole, such as court opinions and newspaper accounts of
cases, also allowed us to corroborate information reported in the survey,
giving confidence in the general accuracy of survey responses and interview
testimony.

Pseudonyms are used for all inmates and the facility where
people are located, and other identifying facts are not revealed in the report.
The level of violence in California's prisons and the likelihood that
information people provided Human Rights Watch would be used by prisoners or
others to cause harm makes the protection of subjects a priority. The topics
addressed in the survey are deeply personal and concern difficult situations in
the respondents' lives. People responding had varying degrees of trust that
Human Rights Watch could protect them from retaliation. Some respondents
expressed fear about whether the information might be used against them by
other prisoners or guards. References to violence they have seen in prison, a
description of the crime, or even an answer to the question about what they
wish they could convey to the victims is information that could result in
retaliation.

Inmates were not the only people who were willing to share
personal details of their lives for this report. Human Rights Watch also
interviewed five family members of victims who had been murdered by juveniles
and who shared with us deeply personal pain and loss. It was our intention to
provide insight to the spectrum of victim perspectives on the issue of life
without parole for juveniles. These individuals were found by searching online
and by word of mouth. We contacted victims' rights groups, and asked for
suggestions. One interviewee was referred by a chaplain, another was suggested
by an interviewee who knew another victim with a very different perspective
than her own. In another case we were able to identify the family member of a
victim through the survey response. We then asked for permission to contact
her. While this small group is in no way a representative sample of all
victims, we hope their perspectives will provide some insight into the complexity
and richness of victim responses. All of the victims interviewed were activists
on different issues, including victims' rights, anti-violence work, mentoring
at-risk youth, and abolition of the death penalty. The fact that they are
activists made it possible for us to find them. In all cases, these victim
family members agreed to the publication of their real names.

Recommendations

To the Governor of California

Support the abolition of the sentence of life without
parole for youth under the age of 18.

Where youth are sentenced to prison terms, ensure
meaningful opportunities for rehabilitation, education, and vocational
training.

Periodically assess the eligibility of youth offenders to
parole.

To the California State Legislature

Enact legislation abolishing the sentence of life without
parole for youth who were under the age of 18 when they committed their
crime.

Enact legislation that creates meaningful opportunities
for rehabilitation, education, and vocational training for people who are
sentenced to life terms.

To State and County Officials

To State Judges

Refuse to impose the sentence of life without parole on
youth who committed their crime under the age of 18 on the grounds that California's law violates international law.

To California District
Attorneys

Support abolishment of the sentence of life without parole
for juveniles in California law.

Exercise the discretion provided under California law to
recommend sentences other than life without parole for juveniles.

To Defense Attorneys

Ensure that defendants and their families understand the
procedures, defense strategies, and seriousness of the charges, including
the possible sentence of life without parole, so that they can fully
exercise their rights.

Vigorously defend the rights of juvenile clients in adult
court at all stages of the case, including trial plea bargaining and the
sentencing phases.

Teenagers Sentenced to Die in California Prisons

[There's] no doubt in my mind that he should be where he
is, just not forever.

The 227 people who have thus far been sentenced to life
without the possibility of parole in California have one thing in common: when
they were considered children under every other law, they faced adult criminal
penalties for their actions and were sentenced to spend the rest of their lives
in prison. In California "life without parole" means just that: absolutely no
opportunity for release. It is, most accurately, a sentence until death. "When
I die, that's when they'll send me home," said Charles T.[3]

In the United States at least 2,380 people are serving life
without parole for crimes they committed when they were under the age of 18.[4] This
practice violates international human rights law, which strictly prohibits the
use of life without parole for those who are not yet 18 years old.[5]

Actual practice of states shows that the United States is out of step with most of the world. Research has found only seven individuals
serving the sentence for a childhood crime outside the United States.[6]
Although other countries have laws permitting life without parole, only ten
retain the sentence for those under age 18, but nine of these countries have no
persons serving life without parole who committed the crime under the age of
18.[7]
Only one other country in the world continues to actually use the sentence for
those ages 17 and younger.[8]

All but a handful of the youth sentenced to life without
parole in California are boys; of the at least 227 sentenced between 1990 and
mid-2007, only five were girls.[9]

California's law permits youth as young as 14 to be sentenced
to life without parole for certain crimes. Most of the 227 were 16 or 17 years
old at the time of the crime: 41 percent were 16 years old, and 55 percent were
17. The remaining four percent were 14 or 15 years old when the crime took
place.[10]Billy G. was 17 years old at the time of his crime and had never lived
away from home. The only job he had held was at a concession stand at the local
county fairgrounds. "I didn't have any facial hair-I learned how to shave and
become a man in prison," he told us.[11]

There are several striking common characteristics among much
of those sentenced as youth to life without parole. These characteristics do
not fit what might be the typical image of an irredeemable individual,
separated from community and family.

Perhaps
most remarkably, the crime for which these youth receive sentences of life
without parole is often their first one. In a national study of juveniles
serving life without parole, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch found
that in 59 percent of juvenile life without parole cases surveyed, the juvenile
was a first-time offender, with no juvenile or adult record.[12] While there is
no question that crimes incurring a life without parole sentence are serious,
many individuals committing these crimes had no track record of incorrigibility
before being sentenced to life with no chance of parole.

In nearly three out of four cases Human Rights Watch
surveyed in California, youth had strong ties to family and community, a factor
that generally weighs heavily in the success of rehabilitation.[13] At the time of
the crime, 71 percent of the juveniles were living with one or both parents.
Another 11 percent reported that they were living with other relatives. Only a
few were living without the family connection or adult direction that one might
assume would lead to criminal involvement: 6 percent were homeless at the time
of the crime, 4 percent were living with friends, and 1.6 percent were in
foster care. For many, family ties remain after incarceration. Nearly 80 percent
of those surveyed said they had family visits in prison, and 52 percent of
those reported having visits ranging from several times a year to as often as
every week. As Raymond M. observed of his fellow youth offenders serving life
without parole: "With the support system they have on the outside, they're the
ones who can succeed."[14]

Another factor that does not fit with the stereotype of a
young person in prison is that nearly 60 percent had completed grades 10, 11,
or 12 before their arrests.[15]

Why Youth are Serving Life
without Parole in California

A conviction in criminal court means punishment: retribution
is the primary objective. In contrast, the juvenile justice system is built on
the recognition that young people should be given second chances and the tools
to turn their lives around. While punishment is one goal, juvenile court also
aims for rehabilitative treatment and remedial support. A teen tried in adult
court, however, faces an adult sentence, including the most serious penalties
available under the law, with the exception only of the death penalty. When the
sentence is life without parole, a decision has been made to throw that young
person's life away.[16]

In California there are several mechanisms by which someone
under the age of 18 can end up in adult criminal court, facing adult penalties.
A judge can preside over a "fitness hearing" to assess the youth's amenability
to rehabilitation in the juvenile system and the seriousness of the crime.[17] In
addition, California is just one of 15 states that allows prosecutors to file a
case directly in adult court, without a hearing or any judicial oversight
determining whether the decision to send a juvenile to the adult system is
appropriate.[18]
Finally, California is one of 29 states that mandates a juvenile's transfer to
adult court if he or she is accused of committing certain crimes.[19]

Crimes that Result in a Life
without Parole Sentence

Under
California law, certain criminal convictions are presumed by law to result in
a life without parole sentence.[20]
For example, a judge must sentence a 16-year-old to life without parole if he
or she was convicted of murder with special circumstances (discussed in detail
below).[21]
Life without parole is generally mandatory in such cases, with only one limited
exception: if a judge finds good reason to instead impose a sentence of 25
years to life.[22]
The California appellate court, however, has made clear that judicial
discretion to impose the lesser sentence of 25 years to life operates as the
exception, not the rule: "Life without parole is the presumptive punishment for
16- or 17-year-old[s]…and the court's discretion is concomitantly circumscribed
to that extent," stated the California Court of Appeals in its 1994 decision People
v. Guinn.[23]

Of the 227 youths who have been sentenced to life without
parole in California, 217 were convicted of the crime of first degree murder
with special circumstances.[24]
Some serving life without parole, however, were convicted for crimes other than
murder.[25]
For example, one person serving life without parole in California was 14 years
old when he committed a kidnapping that resulted in his sentence. No one was
injured in that incident.[26]

The vast majority youth offender life without parole cases,
however, are cases charged as murder with special circumstances. The California
Penal Code delineates the circumstances that increase the seriousness of a
murder conviction, including a murder committed during the course of a felony,
a murder related to gang activity, murder for financial gain, and murder by
means of lying in wait, among 22 total special circumstances.[27]

Although the term "murder with special circumstances" may
conjure images of the most heinous and calculated homicides, the facts of California's juvenile life without parole cases vary widely in the violence and seriousness
and the teenager's degree of participation. There is no question that murder
causes far-reaching devastation for families and communities. Not every murder,
however, is especially brutal or heinous. Based on interviews and case-specific
research, Human Rights Watch found that in cases involving juveniles, the
special circumstances are not reliable indicators of the level of violence,
premeditation, or responsibility involved in the murder.

Unjust Results

Many Youth Sentenced to
Life without Parole did not Actually Kill

Under
state law there are several ways in which a person can become criminally
responsible for another person's actions. In California a significant number of
juveniles sentenced to life without parole were convicted of a murder that they
did not physically commit. Forty-five percent of those who responded to Human
Rights Watch's survey said they were not convicted of physically committing the
murder for which they are serving life without parole.[28]

This "murder once removed" exists in several legal forms.[29] One
is "felony murder." Felony murder results when a participant in a felony is
held responsible for a codefendant's act of murder that occurred during the
course of the felony. A person convicted under the felony murder rule is not
the one who physically committed the murder. The law does not require the
person to know that a murder will take place or even that another participant
is armed.[30]
As long as an individual was a major participant in the commission of a felony,
he or she becomes responsible for a homicide committed by a codefendant.

In addition to felony murder, juveniles can be sentenced to
life without parole for other involvement that falls short of being the trigger
person, such as aiding and abetting, or being an accomplice.[31] "I sold the gun
to the shooter prior [to] the day of the shooting, plus I gave him a ride from
the crime scene," Ruslan D. said, describing his role in a murder committed by
his 18-year-old codefendant.[32]
Ruslan was convicted for aiding and abetting and was sentenced to life without
parole. As one prosecutor said after the sentencing of a juvenile to life
without parole, "A lot of kids don't understand aiding and abetting."[33]

A significant number of these cases involve situations of an
attempted crime gone awry-a tragically botched robbery attempt, for
example-rather than premeditated murder. Under the law, a teen who commits
murder in the course of a felony-even when lacking premeditation-will presumptively
receive life without parole because of the special circumstance of being
engaged in or attempting to commit a felony.[34] Based on available data, this
special circumstance is the most frequently imposed out of all the 22 special
circumstances, with a significant number based on the felony of robbery.[35]

The Worst Racial Disparity in the Nation

In California, as well as at least 10 other states, African
American youth are sentenced to life without parole at rates that suggest
unequal treatment before sentencing courts. This unequal treatment of youth
cannot be explained by white and African American youths' differential
involvement in crime alone.

Eighty-five
percent of youth sentenced to life without parole in California are people of
color, with 75 percent of all cases in California being African American or
Hispanic youth (Figure 1). Data from the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation shows that 95 are Hispanic and 74 African American. Whites are
44 percent of the state's population but just 15 percent of those sentenced to
life without parole as youth offenders.[36]

Figure 1

Source: California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation data, April 2004

We have data on white and African American youth serving
life without parole in the United States for 25 out of the 39 states that apply
the sentence in law and practice. As illustrated by figure 2 below, in these
states, relative to the state population in the age group 14-17, African
American youth are serving life without parole at rates that are, on average,
10 times higher than their white counterparts.[37]

In California, however, African American youth are serving
the sentence at a rate that is 18.3 times higher than the rate for white youth.
The rate at which Hispanic youth in California serve life without parole is
five times that of white youth in the state.[38]

Figure 2

Youth offenders serving life without parole data originally
published in Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, The Rest of Their
Lives: Life without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States (New
York: Human Rights Watch, 2005), http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us1005/; and
supplemented by data on under-18 offenders serving life without parole in California
provided to Human Rights Watch from California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation in April 2007. Data on under-18 offenders serving life without
parole in Mississippi provided to Human Rights Watch from NAACP LDF in October
2007 (report forthcoming). Population data extracted by Human Rights Watch from
C. Puzzanchera, T. Finnegan, and W. Kang, Easy Access to Juvenile
Populations Online: US Census Population Data, State Population Data
with Bridged Race Categories 2004, for ages 14-17, http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/
(accessed January 2, 2008). Certain states are not included in the above
figure because of insufficient data. Ratio calculated using rates per 10,000
population of youth age 14-17 disaggregated by race and state.[39]

Some argue that these differences in sentencing rates are
due to differences in involvement in crime.[40] Human Rights Watch sought data on
the involvement in crime of youth in the United States disaggregated by race
and state for a time period roughly comparable to the sentencing and population
data sets we had already compiled. Specifically, we sought data on youths
convicted of murder, since murder is the crime that most commonly results in
the life without parole sentence for youth offenders.[41]
We were unable to find any such data source available in the country. The
Federal Bureau of Investigations agreed to produce a special data set for us
reporting on these variables for the years 1990-2005. These data on youths
arrested for murder form the basis for Human Rights Watch's analysis in this
report.[42]
An important limitation of the data is that there was no information available
for the rate of conviction for those arrested. Calculating the rates of JLWOP
based upon rate of arrest rather than conviction may bias the results if there
are differential rates of conviction by race.[43]

For the 25 states for which we have data, African American
youth are arrested per capita for murder at rates that are six times higher
than white youth.[44]
We have calculated murder arrest rates per capita for African American and
white youth and found that in California for every 10,000 African American
youth in the state, 82.69 are arrested for murder. For every 10,000 white youth
in the state, 26.36 are arrested for murder. For the 25 states for which we
have data, the rate of murder arrests for African American youth is 42.42 per
10,000 youth while the national average for white youth is 6.4 per 10,000. These
rates show that twice as manyAfrican Americanyouth andfour
timesas many white youth are arrested for murder in California than are
arrested on a per capita basis in the 25 states for which we have data.[45]

Figure 3

State

Black Murder Arrest Rate / Black JLWOP Rate

White Murder Arrest Rate / White JLWOP Rate

White Rate of JLWOP per Arrests / Black rate of JLWOP
per Arrests

California

21.14

123.31

5.83

Delaware

3.00

12.00

4.00

Colorado

4.58

15.29

3.34

Arizona

16.33

52.71

3.23

Georgia

87.50

262.50

3.00

Connecticut

22.83

47.50

2.08

N. Carolina

22.44

37.83

1.69

Illinois

12.74

18.90

1.48

Pennsylvania

2.86

3.60

1.26

Nebraska

4.40

5.40

1.23

Murder arrest data extracted by Human Rights Watch from data
provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reporting
Program: 1990-2005 Arrest by State, (extracted by code for murder crimes,
juvenile status, and race) (on file with Human Rights Watch). Population data
extracted by Human Rights Watch from C. Puzzanchera, T. Finnegan, and W. Kang, Easy
Access to Juvenile Populations Online: US Census Population Data,
State Population Data with Bridged Race Categories 2004, for ages 14-17,
http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/ (accessed January 2, 2008). Certain
states are not included in the above figure because of insufficient data (see
footnote 39, above). Youth offenders serving life without parole data
originally published in Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, The
Rest of Their Lives: Life without Parole for Child Offenders in the United
States (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2005), http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us1005/;
and supplemented by data on under-18 offenders serving life without parole in
California provided to Human Rights Watch from California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation in April 2007. Data on under-18 offenders
serving life without parole in Mississippi provided to Human Rights Watch from
NAACP LDF in October 2007 (report forthcoming). Iowa data could not be used for
this comparison.

These racial disparities in arrest rates per capita for
murder may reflect racial discrimination in the administration of juvenile
justice in the United States, or they may reflect differences between African
American and white youth criminality.Regardless, once arrested, one
would expect that the ratio of the number of African American youths arrested
to the number of African American youth sentenced to LWOP would be similar to
the ratio of the number of white youth arrested versus the number of white
youth sentenced to LWOP. However, we found that in 10 states, with California the most strikingly disproportionate example, that this was not the case (Figure
3).

In
California, for every 21.14 African American youth arrested for murder in the
state, one is serving a life without parole sentence; whereas for every 123.31
white youth arrested for murder, one is serving life without parole.[46] In
other words, African American youth arrested for murder are sentenced to life
without parole in California at a rate that is 5.83 times that of white youth
arrested for murder. Overall, in the 25 states where data is available, African
American youth arrested for murder are sentenced to life without parole at a
rate that is 1.56 times that of white youth arrested for murder.

These disparities support the hypothesis that there is
something other than the criminality of these two racial groups-something that
happens after their arrests for murder, such as unequal treatment by
prosecutors, before courts, and by sentencing judges-that causes the
disparities between sentencing of African American and white youth to life
without parole.

County Sentencing Practices Differ

There is geographic inequity as well: the application of
life without parole sentences varies widely among California counties. For
example, as Figure 5 shows, although Alameda and Riverside counties have
similar juvenile homicide rates, Riverside County has a juvenile life without
parole rate nearly three times that of Alameda County. Similarly, while Monterey and Solano counties have comparable juvenile homicide rates, Solano County has four times as many teens serving life without parole sentence as Monterey.[47] In
some counties these numbers are so small as to not be statistically
significant.

Los Angeles is the state's most populous county; in fact, it
has more children and youth than any other county in the country.[48]
However, population alone does not explain the high number of Los Angeles teens
sent to prison with no chance of release. While its population accounts for 28
percent of the state's youth, over 41 percent of all California youth sentenced
life without parole are from Los Angeles.[49] African American youth
are about 11 percent of the Los Angeles youth population, but represent 37
percent of those sentenced to life without parole. White youth, on the other
hand, make up 22 percent of general youth population but represent only eight
percent of those from Los Angeles serving life without parole.[50]

Influence of Peers

Common experience and developmental science teach that teens
tend to act in concert with and be influenced by others. Youth do things in the
presence of peers they would never do alone. The power of peer influence
decreases with age, and what an individual at age 16 or 17 will do in a group
may be quite different than the choices he or she will make when older. This is
significant in the context of sentencing youth to life without parole, where a
final decision as to an individual's amenability to rehabilitation is based on
the person's actions as a teenager. When those actions were in a group, they
may not reflect the individual's potential as he or she matures.

Not surprisingly, youth who commit crimes making them
eligible for life without parole are likely to have codefendants. Over 75
percent of those surveyed by Human Rights Watch committed their crimes in
groups ranging in size from two to eight individuals. Research shows that peer
groups are particularly influential during teen years, as opposed to the more
autonomous independent decision-making

characteristic of adults. The susceptibility to peer
influence peaks during the early to mid teens-precisely the period during which
many of the individuals serving life without parole committed the acts that
lead to the life without parole sentence-a phenomenon exacerbated by the fact
that adolescents spend less time with parents, more time in groups than adults,
and that people in groups generally make riskier decisions than they do alone.[51]
"When you're young, you're trying to impress people…your friends," said Eduardo
E.[52]

Teens are not only more susceptible to peer influence, they
are also much more likely to engage in risky behavior with peers. One study
showed that the presence of peers more than doubled the number of risks that
teenagers took in a simulated video driving game but had no effect at all on
adults.[53]
Michael A. reflected on the events leading up to his crime. "A friend was
saying he had a problem with some guy. A lot came down to [my] wanting to
simply look like a cool guy-like a guy of action who could help him out.It
was just a bunch of kids trying to be macho," he concludes now, looking back
with the perspective of a 30-year-old.[54]

The likelihood of engaging in risky behavior is further
heightened when teens lack structured, supportive institutional and family
contexts.[55]
While some people we interviewed and surveyed grew up in supportive homes and
had strong school and social connections, others described growing up in
environments that were troubled. Billy G.'s father died when he was seven years
old, leaving his mother alone with seven kids, he told us. She held down two
jobs through most of his childhood. Billy describes her as "mainly a monetary
figure" while his older brothers played the role of parent. "That obviously
didn't work out too well," he noted, dryly commenting on the fact that an older
brother became a codefendant in the case that sent Billy to prison for life.[56]

Gangs and gang membership also can be, in part, a
peer-driven force. A gang-related murder can result in a special circumstances
finding and a presumptive sentence of life without parole under California law.[57]
However, when the issue is whether the harshest punishment available under law
should be imposed on a teenager on the basis of gang affiliation, there should
be an analysis of whether the gang involvement is actually a reliable
measurement of a teen's culpability and the
likelihood
of future criminal behavior. Some of those interviewed for this report
described their gang involvement as an adolescent failing. "I was affiliated
with a street gang-I used to do things to impress people, to fit in," said
Chris D. of his criminal behavior. As he matured, however, his perspective
changed. "Now, you need to fit in to be in my life rather than the other way
around…I look back and think-why did I do that?" he told us.[58]

Additionally, some of those interviewed said they were drawn
to gangs as a substitute for family support. J.R. J. described his attraction to gangs at a very young
age, coinciding directly with a period of time in his life when things were
falling apart at home and he was placed in foster care. "I was eight or nine,
hanging out with a lot of older dudes in a gang. They were my friends, I could
count on them to be there for me. Hanging out with them, it was like, I'm
cool." He also has a different perspective as someone now in his thirties: "The
way I see things now is different-I'm done with that, done with gangs. After
all these years, I carry myself differently now…I don't want to live like that
any more. I just want to live my life."[59]

Given the reasons why some youth become involved in gangs
and the power dynamic between its older and younger members, the penal code'sblanketgang member special circumstance does not account for
individual differences and does not necessarily identify the most violent
teens.

Adult Codefendants

Respondents
to the survey report a high level of adult involvement in their crimes. In
nearly 70 percent of cases in which the youth was acting with codefendants, at
least one of the codefendants was an adult. According to Human Rights Watch's
survey, many juveniles sentenced to life without parole committed their crimes
under the influence of, and in some cases, under the direction of, an adult.[60] This
high percentage of adult codefendants is an important factor in understanding
how juveniles get involved in crimes that result in life without parole.
Additionally, adult codefendants tend to get lower sentences than the youth.
Age should be a factor in determining culpability, and the influence of adults
over young people should be taken into account when assessing a youth's
criminal responsibility.

Specific examples abound: juveniles who were the youngest in
a group of significantly older adults committing a crime; younger brothers
participating in a crime facilitated or encouraged by an older brother or
family member; a young gang member trying to impress older ones. For example,
Franklin H. told us that while he was 15 at the time of his crime, his three
codefendants were 19, 20, and 27 years old. Of his attempt to fit in with that
group he said, "I was trying to be cool."[61] Both of Bill K.'s
codefendants were adults; he was 16. One codefendant was 12 years older and had
sexually abused and beaten Bill. "I was in a forced relationship. Where my
codefendant was, I was. [I was] never to leave his side or he would beat the
crap out of me." When he told Bill he had to be the lookout for a robbery, Bill
said, he did it. "I was afraid of him." The robbery ended with his codefendants
killing the robbery victim, and Bill was sentenced to life without parole for
his role in the robbery.[62]

A true examination of a teenager's culpability would not be
accurate without assessing whether he or she acted under an adult's direction.
While no one would suggest that teens are inclined to obey all adults, there
can be no question that young people in the settings that give rise to criminal
behaviors are vulnerable to adult influence. Yet once a juvenile is sent to be
tried in adult court, this factor is not taken into account unless there is a
defense that gives rise to the legal standard of duress, a very high bar to
reach. Cases proceed, in essence, ignoring the reality of a child or young
person under an adult's influence.

Respondents reported that in 56 percent of cases in which
there was an adult codefendant, the adult received a lower sentence than the
juvenile.[63]
For example, Jesus N. was 16 when he and a 20-year-old codefendant
committed a murder. Jesus told us that the adult pled to a lesser charge and
was sentenced to 11 years. Jesus went to trial and was sentenced to life
without parole.[64]
J.R. J. was 16 when he participated in a robbery that ended with the victim
being killed. J.R. was not the shooter and had several codefendants, including
two adults. All were charged under the felony murder rule. Neither adult was
sentenced to life without parole, but J.R. and another minor codefendant were
sentenced to life without parole.[65]

One very likely explanation for why adults end up with lower
sentences than juveniles is that youth may not appreciate the value of plea
deals offered. Some told Human Rights Watch they did not grasp the significance
of plea deals because they could not fathom the length of the prison term.
Others described not understanding concepts like felony murder. Robert D. was
offered a plea deal before trial. "When they offered [my codefendant and me] 30
years, a flat 30 years, not 30 to life-we were 17 [years old.] We didn't
understand. Thirty years? I was 17 and in 30 years I'd be 47. That seemed like
forever to me. We were in juvie hall. We said no."[66] More than a
third of youthful offenders responding to Human Rights Watch's survey said they
had been offered plea deals but turned them down.[67]

Another possible reason that adults tend to get shorter
sentences than juveniles is that adults may be more sophisticated in
maneuvering through the criminal justice system. In addition to having a keener
idea of when to take a deal, they may be more savvy and able to blame their
younger codefendants. One interviewee said he had several adult codefendants,
one of whom was more than 10 years older than he. "I thought these older dudes
would be my friends, but in the end, they said that I did it all."[68]
Another interviewee said, "[In] Asian gang culture-it's always the youngest who
takes the blame."[69]

Legal Representation that Compromises Justice

Poor legal assistance afforded to many teen defendants
appears to further compromise just outcomes. Some of those Human Rights Watch
interviewed or surveyed described a level of legal representation that falls
well below professional norms. One of the most salient errors reported to Human
Rights Watch is attorneys' failures to adequately represent youthful offenders
at the sentencing hearing. In 46 percent of cases respondents reported that
their attorney failed to argue for a lower sentence.[70] In addition, in
over 65 percent of cases, attorneys failed to inform their young clients that
family, community members, and others could testify on their behalf at their
sentencing hearing. Nearly 70 percent had no one speak on their
behalf at the hearing: not a parent, a teacher who saw some good in a student,
a coach who knew another side to a young person's personality, or a friend.[71] "He
just threw me to the wolves," said Chris D., of his defense attorney. "I didn't
realize [that you could have witnesses at sentencing] until I was talking to other
guys [in jail] that were going through the sentencing process."[72]

This is significant because the sentencing hearing is an
opportunity for the judge to hear information about the defendant that would
not have surfaced at trial. Character, amenability to change, and other
mitigating circumstances are relevant at sentencing and help a judge assess
whether "good reason" exists to apply a 25-to-life sentence rather than life
without parole. Such omissions have particularly egregious consequences for a juvenile
defendant facing life without parole, given both the severity of the sentence
and the factors in many of these young people's lives that could be the basis
for a lower sentence. "On the day of my sentence I was in such a stupor, I
don't even know what was said. But what I do remember was an empty courtroom.
It had an atmosphere of a funeral. Then again, maybe it was just me," Taylor C.
wrote of his sentencing hearing.[73]

The mother of a 17 year old was stunned as she watched her
son's case move straight from the verdict to sentencing. "He was found guilty
and then right after the jury left, just right that next minute, the judge and
attorneys started talking about sentencing," Ms. Murray told us. She had
expected her son's attorney to prepare for sentencing and she thought the judge
would review information from the case before making the decision. "[The
attorney] didn't even ask the judge for more time to get ready for sentencing."
Instead, the case proceeded to sentencing and the attorney for her son made no
argument for a lesser sentence. "Not even a single argument. He could have
said, 'this is a minor, he's never been arrested before…'but [he did not say] a
single thing in favor of a different sentence."[74]

The
picture is a stark one: many youth tried in an adult court, facing the most
severe penalty allowed by law, go through their sentencing hearings alone. Many
can not even rely on their attorneys to stand up for them.

It is hard to identify justifiable reasons why an attorney
would fail to prepare a strong case at sentencing. An attorney might not argue
for a sentence of 25 years to life instead of life with no chance of parole
because of poor professional conduct, or ignorance that a lesser sentence is an
option under law. Or, an attorney may fail to argue for a lesser sentence
because, with life without parole being the presumed sentence, he or she
believes there is no chance of winning a lower sentence.

Representing a juvenile facing serious charges is no simple
matter for an attorney. Juveniles can be difficult clients who are less able to
assist their attorneys by virtue of their lack of experience, developmental
stage, and educational level. In addition, studies have shown that many youth
involved in the juvenile justice system suffer from learning disabilities and
mental health problems.[75]
Cyn Yamashiro is the Director of the Center for Juvenile Law and Policy and a
professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. He says that representing youth
is "in many ways, far more complicated than representing adults."[76]
Noting that there are the natural developmental and cognitive issues that all
youth present, Professor Yamashiro explains that for many youth involved in the
criminal system, there are problems that make the role of the attorney more complex.
"The majority of these children suffer from learning disabilities, have been
physically and psychologically abused, and have at least one diagnosable mental
illness."[77]These
impairments can make clear communication about complex concepts difficult.
Attorneys representing youth must take special care to ensure their clients
understand what is happening in the case. "Especially as a kid, you just say
'yes' to everything. I could follow what was going on somewhat, but the law is
an alien language. As a kid, you're told what has to happen, and you just do
it," said Michael A.[78]

Many
interviewees told us that their own participation in their court case was
nominal at best. Robert D. remembers, "The law [didn't] make sense to me. I was
like, 'It's up to the lawyer, do what you do.'"[79] Almost all of
those interviewed said they did not fully understand the proceedings, their
role in the process, and the consequences at stake. "I didn't even know I got
LWOP until I talked to my lawyer after the hearing," Jeff S. told us.[80] This,
too, indicates inadequate legal representation. As Chris D. explained, "Part of
it was I was young and didn't know how to express myself. I wasn't able to tell
him how I felt. But him being the adult-he should have found a way to communicate
with me. He treated me like another statistic."[81]

Finally,
in addition to inadequate preparation and communication on the part of
attorneys, at least 11 respondents to Human Rights Watch's survey reported that
judges explicitly reasoned that they were bound by law to impose the life
without parole sentence, when in fact the law would have allowed them to impose
a shorter sentence. Robert C. remembers what the judge said at his sentencing:
"He said he had no choice but to give me LWOP because the jury found me guilty
of first degree murder and by law he has to give me what first degree murder
hold[s] (LWOP)."[82]
If a judge is confused as to the application of the law, the attorney should
provide the court with the correct statement of the law.[83] Other information
suggests that attorneys and judges alike are operating under the presumption
that life without parole should almost always be imposed on youth convicted of
murder with special circumstances in California. These cases further indicate
the lack of attention in some courtrooms to the sentencing phase and a dearth
of engaged discussion between the attorneys and judges about the law and
appropriate sentencing. Judges and lawyers may be confused about the law and,
at least in some cases, are not taking the time to figure it out.[84]

Ray
J.

Ray is
one of five siblings, from, he said, a close-knit family in Oakland, California. As he grew up, his self-image was tied to being a protector and a good
friend. "I was always the protector of the family and tried to be there for
my friends. I wasn't no bad guy or anything like that…I have sisters and a
lot of nieces. I'm the only boy, so I had to watch out for all of them."

By age
17, Ray had been getting into minor trouble-"I'd cut school to hang out
with girls" and had started to deal drugs-but did not have a juvenile
record. During this time, Ray was also learning trades from his father and
discovered a facility for the work. "I knew how to do carpentry, electrical
work, roofing, plumbing, keys-I've had trades since I was little. My dad
taught me things-he's a carpenter and a locksmith." Straddling the two
worlds became a day to day reality. "I used to sell drugs for fast money,
but at the same time, I worked for my father building houses."

Shortly
before the crime, Ray decided to leave the street life behind him and
applied-and was accepted-into the Job Corps program, a job training program
for young people. "I had this epiphany-I'm tired of hanging out on the
streets. I want to do something with my life, something creative." He had
plans to open up a mechanics shop where he would buy cars, fix them up and
sell them. The day that his plane ticket to San Diego arrived for the Job
Corps program, however, he was arrested.

Earlier
that week, Ray was approached by a friend who begged him to help rob a
local convenience store, and Ray agreed. "I thought I'd just go to make
sure nothing bad happens. So I went with him and everything went wrong."
During the course of the robbery, Ray's codefendant shot and killed a
convenience store employee. The two were tried together, and although the
court found that Ray did not personally commit the murder, he was
nevertheless found guilty on a felony murder basis of first degree murder
and was sentenced to life without parole plus 10 years for the use of a
gun.

"The
judge let me hug my mom and I cried and I couldn't stop," he said,
describing the moment when he heard the sentence. "I got life without and I
didn't kill anybody."

-Human Rights Watch
interview with Ray J.,

serving life without
parole in California, July 16, 2007

The Late Teens and Early
Twenties: A Dramatic Period for Personal Growth

Human beings change, in dramatic ways, over time. It is a
singular theme that resonates through the personal experiences of the
individuals Human Rights Watch interviewed for this report and an empirical
fact supported by scientific data on human development. It has particularly
emphatic implications for young people, as experience and science both confirm
change naturally occurs during the years leading up to adulthood. "As a
transitional period," reports a study by Temple Professor of Psychology
Laurence Steinberg and others, "adolescence is marked by rapid and dramatic
[individual] change in the realms of biology, cognition, emotion, and intrapersonal
relationships and by equally impressive transformations in the major contexts
in which children spend time."[85]

Teens are not adults. Their limited life experience,
immaturity, and under-developed psychological and biological constitutions led the
US Supreme Court to recognize that youth are not as culpable for their crimes
as adults, when it held the death penalty unconstitutional for offenders under
age 18: "The case for retribution is not as strong with a minor as with an
adult. Retribution is not proportional if the law's most severe penalty is
imposed on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished, to a
substantial degree, by reason of youth and immaturity."[86]

This is not to say that youth's actions should go
unpunished. In fact, not a single one of the individuals serving life without
parole for crimes committed as teens suggested that he or she should not be
held responsible for his own actions. "We are humans. We make mistakes. We
sometimes do really bad things," said Eduardo E. "I'm not trying to say that we
shouldn't be punished for what we did."[87]

Additionally,
no one interviewed denied the tragedy that their actions have caused. Some
interviewees explained that they believe punishment is deserved and expressed
evident remorse for actions they can now view through the sobriety of adult
eyes. Many who communicated with us pinpointed when they really began to
understand the significance of having taken a life. "The human factor, of being
involved in taking someone's life. It's hard to put into words, something of
that magnitude," said Billy G., now 32, who wept when discussing his
involvement in the crime with a Human Rights Watch researcher. He described an
awareness growing over a number of years about what he had done. "As a kid, you
don't realize how fragile life is or how fragile it becomes."[88] Thirty-three
year old Roland T. described the process of beginning to understand what he had
done, and his feelings of remorse. "My thoughts about what I had done to
them-I've been thinking about the crime, my case, and the victims a lot," he
told us. "I didn't realize my situation until I was about 24 or 25 years old. I
started thinking about my whole life, what my whole family went through-their
pain and suffering. I started waking up. I started regretting… Just me really
accepting what I had done to them," said Roland. [89]

Teens' Unique Potential for
Change

Recent scientific findings reveal dramatic structural growth
in the brain during teen years. These findings, advanced with the use of
increasingly sophisticated MRI image analysis, overturns assumptions regarding
the completion of brain development at early adolescence.[90] Much of the
focus on this relatively new discovery has been on teenagers' limited
comprehension and inability to act with adult-like volition. Just as important,
however, is the conclusion that teens are still developing. These findings
suggest that young offenders may be particularly amenable to change and
rehabilitation.

Research
has shown that the most dramatic difference between the brains of teens and
young adults is the development of the frontal lobe.[91] The frontal lobe is
responsible for cognitive processing, such as planning, strategizing, and
organizing thoughts and actions. Researchers have determined that one area of
the frontal lobe-the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex-is among the latest brain
regions to mature, not reaching adult dimensions until a person is in his or
her twenties.[92]
This part of the brain is linked to "the ability to inhibit impulses, weigh
consequences of decisions, prioritize, and strategize."[93] The
decision-making process leading up to teen criminal acts is shaped by
impulsivity, immaturity, and an under-developed ability to appreciate
consequences and resist environmental pressures-attributes characteristic of
children and adolescents. Some researchers have further clarified that it is
not just a cognitive difference between adolescents and adults, but a complex
combination of ability to make good decisions and social and emotional
capability that result in a difference of maturity of judgment.[94]

While the precise relationship between brain growth and
behavioral change is not yet clear, the malleability of a youth's brain
development implies that teens through their twenties may be particularly
amenable to change as they grow older and attain adult levels of development.[95]
"The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity," noted the
US Supreme Court in its 2005 Roper v. Simmons decision, "means it is
less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile
is evidence of irretrievably depraved character. From a moral standpoint, it
would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult,
for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be
reformed."[96]

Furthermore, changes that occur during the teen and early
adult years tend to be significantly more dramatic than change during later
adult years because of the marked mental, physical, psychological, and
emotional growth associated with this period.[97]

In
the context of criminal behavior, changes that occur in the late teens and
early twenties are significant. For example, compared with adults, risk-taking
behaviors for teens can be short-lived.[98] According to Professors Steinberg
and Scott, "For most teens, these [risky or illegal] behaviors are fleeting;
they cease with maturity as individual identity becomes settled. Only a
relatively small proportion of adolescents who experiment in risky or illegal
activities develop entrenched patterns of problem behavior that persist into
adulthood."[99]
These behaviors are for most people part of a temporary, experimental period
during which teens generally engage in risky activities such as drug use,
unsafe sex, alcohol use, and antisocial behaviors.[100]

No
parent of a teenager needs a brain scientist to tell them that teens are likely
at times to, for example, fail to consider the consequences of their actions or
resist impulses. However, neuroscientific advances help define the significance
of these factors. A deeper understanding of adolescent brain development has
become increasingly a part of public awareness, with discussions occurring in
popular magazines such as Time and Newsweek, newspapers, and on
television shows.[101]
The far-reaching significance of this information is beginning to permeate
different sectors. "Why do most 16 year olds drive like they are missing a part
of their brain? Because they are," concludes a full-page ad for Allstate car
insurance. "Even bright, mature teenagers do things that are 'stupid'," it
continues, with a discussion of the underdeveloped part of a 16-year-old's
brain that deals with decision-making, problem-solving, and understanding
future consequences.[102]

Personal Experience of Change

In the vast majority of over 130 written and in-person
communications with Human Rights Watch, people serving life without parole for
crimes committed as youth described themselves as fundamentally different from
what they were at the time of their crime-when they were 14, 15, 16, or 17
years old. Many described a major shift in how they viewed themselves, their
actions, and their ability to control and manage their emotions. Reflection
rather than impulse and an increasing awareness of the consequences of their
actions versus present-oriented thinking were typical ways that individuals
said they matured during their latter teen years stretching into their early
twenties. It could be argued that anyone serving time is likely to claim that
he or she has changed. However, these individuals are reflecting on a period in
life that is a time of tremendous individual change and growth for most people.[103]

When asked about whether he still remained involved with
gangs in prison, Jay C. said, "No, I left everything when I turned 24 or 25. My
mind started working for some reason. I started thinking about life."[104]
Others marked a changing point in their early to mid-twenties as well. Looking
back, they describe how they are different than they were at the time of the
crime. For example:

I was a dumb, ignorant kid who was pretty self absorbed.
I've become a caring man that understands where I went wrong. Now I find
pleasure in helping people. I love my family and would do anything for them.

The
reality that criminal behaviors are likely to be transient for youth is
evidenced by the concrete changes in identity displayed and described by
interviewees. Despite the hardship of maturing in prison, individuals
interviewed by Human Rights Watch for this report have developed into young
adults with a settled identity that prioritizes family, education, and
self-improvement.

Two people serving life without parole for crimes committed
under age 18 interviewed by Human Rights Watch earned placements in an elite
prison unit called the Honor Yard-the only one of its kind in the
state-reserved for exemplary inmates who have remained completely clear of any
disciplinary issues, and have committed to drug-free and violence-free living.[110]
Many others we interviewed said they had actively pursued education or
self-help programming, had assumed leadership positions in extracurricular
activities, or had maintained outstanding disciplinary records. Despite various
institutional barriers to participating in prison programs, 70 percent of
respondents to our survey said that they have availed themselves of programs
such as General Education Development exam (GED) classes and Alcoholics
Anonymous meetings.[111]
Others listed their top interests as reading, writing, and studying.[112]
Jay C. described how he spends his time: "I seldom watch T.V. I'm almost always
reading something, newspapers, books, magazines."[113] Joseph R. said
he had passed his GED exam and had not had an incident on his disciplinary
record in years. "My outlook on life has matured. I've educated myself, and I
continue to educate myself. My focus is to achieve and achieve."[114]

Ray J., aside from becoming a librarian while in prison, has
also been a participant in a program in which inmates counsel and advise
troubled teens.[115]
Brian C. was engaged in the same program until he was moved to a prison that
did not have it.[116]
Richard P. told us that prison staff invited him to speak to kids from the
outside about how to change their lives in a program called "Changing from
Within." Only seven or eight inmates are allowed to participate, he said. He
speaks to as many as 20 kids at each session, and he can see that some of them
come from the same violent background that he did. "Some listen to me. But if
they go through what I did, it's hard to go back to their lives. One kid said
he didn't even have school clothes. He ran out of a store [stealing] clothes. I
heard that and broke down [crying]." Richard explained that he had renounced
gang ties, "dropping out" of the violence and chaos of prison life. "I just
want to help somebody," he says. Speaking of the youngsters, his voice caught.
"I owe these dudes this."[117]

Chris D., who wrote and performed music before entering
prison, said he continues to compose songs.[118] Saul Paul G. said he reads
history, draws, and prays.[119]
Nick V. has become an ordained Buddhist minister and prison staff trusts him to
officiate over Buddhist services.[120]

Several noted that their prison experience, however bad, had
helped them change. Brock I. said he had just turned 31 and had been locked up
since age 17. "To be honest, I gained perspective on life that would not have
happened on the streets. I've become an adult in here. It's crazy how different
you think at 31 compared to when I was 21 let alone 17."[121] Several, such
as Thomas J., reflected on the pain they had caused in their crimes: "It's been
hard. But I also think a lot of the victim's family. I think about how hard it
was or is for them, and that makes me stop thinking and crying for myself."[122]

Others we have communicated with have not been as successful
in evading the pressures and politics of prison life. "[W]hen I first came to
the CDCR, I came with the knowledge that I would be here, literally, forever
and chose to make a name for violence, with a belief that many people are
abused and mistreated inside prison walls every day but people make a wide path
for the convict with a knife in his pocket who isn't afraid to use it," wrote
Thomas H.[123]
Several interviewees described continued involvement with gangs while in prison
and the sense that there was no other choice but to choose violence in such a
violent setting. "In some ways I'm better, in other ways I'm worse than I was
at 17. We segregate ourselves here. Violence is a way of life in prison,"
Robert D. told us.[124]

Overall, prisoners who serve a sentence for murder and are
released prove to be the least likely of any type of offender to commit new
crimes. Following their release, convicted homicide offenders are less than
half as likely be convicted of any new crime than released assault, burglary,
or drug offenders.[125]

Some suggest that people sentenced as juveniles are
different from other prisoners. Chris D. opined, "The majority of kids who come
in here are people who got caught up in the streets. They're not bad people.
It's a mixture of things that the street throws at you-peer pressure,
circumstances, lots of things that a young mind can't conceive."[126]

sentenced to life without parole, Michael had never been
in trouble with

the law.

Michael shot and killed someone in the course of what, he
said, was

supposed to be a robbery/drug deal. Following his
conviction for murder, Michael was placed in a particularly violent yard to
begin his life without

parole sentence. He described what it was like: "When you
arrive there

are all these difference forces. Everyone tries to talk
the younger kids into

their camp-the skinheads, the Nazi Low Rides, or
whatever other group. That's why these guys fall into it."

Michael
said he decided not to engage with people he thought would negatively
influence him. "I really wanted not to fall into that. I constantly tried
to put myself far from situations that could get me in trouble. I very
carefully separated myself from drugs." In such a violent environment,
however, he said he was nonetheless faced daily with the threat of attack.
"There was constant tension in the C-Yard-is there going to be a race war
today? There would be 20 guys in that corner who have knives, and 20 guys
over there with knives-and you were always wondering-what's going to happen?"

Indeed,
Michael said, despite his determination to distance himself from corrosive
influences, it was a challenge to mature in the prison environment. "It's a
struggle to be able to mature here," he said. "Here, it's like an
overcrowded, violent locker room of gang members and drug addicts. You have
all these guys-even those who don't want to reform-all together." Grappling
with the reality of the sentence, as well, is often overwhelming. "The
years are just stretched out in front of you."

Yet
Michael's efforts were so exemplary that he was chosen out of over 170,000
inmates in California prison to be placed in the Honor Yard, the only one
of its kind in the state. "The change I've gone through is self-evident. If
I was violent, I wouldn't be in the Honor Yard, I'd be in shackles," he
explained. Michael insists change and growth-especially as a teen entering
prison-is inevitable. "To say that someone doesn't change over time is a
bizarre concept because everybody knows they are different from when they
were younger-it's too obvious."

-Human Rights Watch
interview with Michael A.,

serving life without
parole in California, June 29, 2007

Life Inside Prison

Fear and Violence

In
California, teens sentenced to life without parole are not placed in adult
prisons until they turn 18 years old. When they are transferred to state
prison, they serve their time in maximum security prisons among the most
violent adult criminals in the state. The majority of individuals serving life
without parole for crimes committed as teens told Human Rights Watch that the
fear of entering adult prison-especially given the striking physical
differences between themselves and the older prisoners-was overwhelming. "I
felt like, 'What am I doing in prison with all these grown men?'" Robert C.
recalls of entering prison as an 18-year-old.[127] Anthony C.
remembers riding in the prison transport van as it pulled up to the prison
where he would spend the rest of his life. "I was scared. I was really young.
When I first saw the outside of the prison, my stomach was hurting. My stomach
started cramping. I had heard all the stories about the violence."[128]
David C., now 29, was sent at age 18 to one of California's highest security
prisons: "[I was] scared to death. I was all of 5'6", 130 pounds and they sent
me to PBSP [Pelican Bay State Prison]. I tried to kill myself because I
couldn't stand what the voices in my head was saying…'You're gonna get raped.'
'You won't ever see your family again.'"[129]

David C. was not the only one who said he had tried to kill
himself. A number of others told us they had considered or attempted suicide
when they entered prison. Yekonya H. wrote, "I felt scared not knowing what
would become of me, nor what to expect. I was alone, in desperate need of guidance.
I thought about killing myself to escape the pain and frustration I felt, for
not being a better child."[130]
Several of those interviewed described watching other inmates commit suicide.
"Prison life is a lot harder than it's made out to be. Especially when a
juvenile is placed in a grown man's prison. There are no friends in prison.
It's every man for himself in prison. Many don't make it," Jason E. said.[131]

Small physique and the status of being newly incarcerated
heighten the risk of being sexually victimized. At 17, when Billy G. was
convicted, he was tiny: "At trial, I was 5'5" and 119, 120 pounds." Upon first
entering adult prison, he said, "I was scared, confused, and intimidated."[132]

For many, violence becomes a daily reality. Fifty-nine
percent of survey respondents who answered questions about victimization in
prison reported that they have been physically or sexually assaulted.[133]
"Someone tried to cut my throat with a razor knife," Gary J. told us.[134]
Nearly every survey respondent reported witnessing violent acts.[135]
Their descriptions make clear that the violence they encounter is not simple
fist fights: nearly half reported witnessing stabbings; some described
witnessing murders, rapes, strangulations, and severe beatings.[136]
"I've seen more death in here than I did when I was living in the inner city,"
Rudy L. said.[137]
Bilal R. wrote, "I have seen stabbings, rapes, robberies, and many other
things. I've been stabbed more than once."[138]

Barriers to Rehabilitative
Opportunities

For youth in California, a sentence to life without parole
has consequences beyond experiencing daily violence. Educational,
rehabilitative, vocational, and other self-improvement programs ordinarily
available to most inmates are often denied to those serving life without
parole, including those sentenced as juveniles. Thirty percent of survey
respondents said no programming was available to them at the prison where they
were housed. Among those who said programs were available, 47 percent said
prison-imposed barriers prevented them from attending. There are several
reasons why inmates serving life without parole are denied access to existing
programs and work opportunities: inmates with shorter sentences have priority,
security classifications not necessarily related to individual behavior make
them ineligible, or they must contend with frequent system "lock-downs" that
are not the result of their individual behavior.

First,
prison practice and regulations give persons sentenced to life without parole
the lowest priority for accessing programs. Interviewees told Human Rights
Watch that their sentence puts them on the lowest rung of waiting lists for GED
classes and substance abuse rehabilitation groups like Alcoholics Anonymous
(AA), with priority being given to inmates with a set number of years on their
sentence. "Those programs are mainly for people that are going home," one
individual told us, echoing the conclusion of many.[139] For example,
Bill C. was 22 years old when we interviewed him. He said he had been in prison
five years and during that time had just one month in a GED class. "I wanted to
get my diploma," he told us. "I did everything I could to get into the GED
program and I was working hard in the class." But after a month, he said, he
was removed from the class and told there was no room for lifers.[140]
Ross Meier, the CDCR Facility Captain in the Classification Service Unit, told us that the programs offered vary from prison to prison and
availability is limited. "We have 173,000 inmates. There are limited spots in
programs."[141]
He confirmed that those who will be released from prison are likely to be given
priority for certain types of programs.[142]

Second,
security levels assigned to prisoners limit participation in existing programs.
Every prisoner is classified and given a security level. Different types and
quantities of programs are available at each security level, with the fewest
opportunities at the highest level. Typically the security level is based on
several factors, including the inmate's sentence and behavior. For those
serving life without parole, behavior is not counted: Meier
clarified that state regulations mandate a level IV assignment.[143]

Level IV places significant restrictions on inmates,
limiting how long they can be out of their cells, what types of jobs they can
perform, and where they can move within the prison. Most prisoners can reduce
their security level over time through good behavior, but those serving life
without parole-no matter how exemplary their behavior-are at stuck at level IV
for years. Interviewees said that despite a clean disciplinary record, they
believed inmates serving life without parole sentences cannot be moved from a
Level IV to a medium or low security unit.[144] "There's a point system…. [You
get points for bad behavior]," said Saul Paul G., "I have zero points,"
explaining that he has had no behavioral problems and not received a single
infraction since he entered prison in 1995. Despite this he remains in a high
security setting.[145]
A number of those interviewed had experiences similar to Saul Paul.

Meier
told Human Rights Watch that individuals serving life without parole are
allowed to petition to have their level lowered. However, for those serving
life without parole, a change in security classification to a level III
requires a decision by the Deputy Director after review by a classification
committee.[146]
Meier refused to speculate as to how often an inmate serving life without
parole has his or her classification reduced.[147] None of the 135
individuals who have communicated with Human Rights Watch said they had had
their classification reduced from a level IV to a level III.

Third, when inmates do get into programs, frequent
"lock-downs" of facilities impede their ability to participate. Lockdowns are a
method of controlling prisoners and are usually in response to violence or
feared violence. The lock-downs confine inmates to cells for 23 hours a day.
"I'm enrolled in education and I can attend AA/NA (Narcotics Anonymous) when it
comes around but most of the time we're [on] lockdown so it's almost impossible
to get any certificates," said Cesar B.[148] Most California state prisons
are at double or nearly double the population capacity for which they were
built.[149]
Violence is more common in overcrowded conditions.[150] "See, there's
no time for program," wrote Jose Luis C. "It's a continuous thing, [we're]
always locked down…I've been here since last March 2006 and [in those 17 months
I've] only been [able to go outside or go to programs] for a total of maybe two
and a half months. You do the math."[151]

The
lack of educational and other rehabilitative opportunities is particularly
disturbing for youth sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison.
Regardless of their sentence, young people should be provided basic educational
and self-improvement opportunities.[152]
By virtue of their age, most had not finished high school at the time of
arrest. For many, substance abuse and other problems that gave rise to their
criminal behavior need to be addressed. More than half of survey respondents
reported that mental health, drugs, or disability played a direct role in their
crimes.[153]
An overwhelming majority-86 percent reported that they were abusing alcohol or
drugs during their teen years, with 64 percent using drugs or alcohol at least
four times a week and many using every day. Only 14 percent had received
counseling or substance abuse treatment before their arrest.[154] For example,
Leo T. said he was drinking alcohol every day when he was 16 years old and
arrested for the crime that sent him to prison for life. He had no intervention
as a teen, and when he entered prison he wanted to change. "I couldn't get into
AA, there's a waitlist," he said.[155]

Those sentenced to life without parole as juveniles describe
their daily prison life in terms of hell, nightmares, and loneliness. "[It's] a
terrible dream that I can't wake up from. No matter what I say or do in my
dream, I can't wake up," wrote William R., now 28 years old.[156] John D., now
31, says, "I feel like I am dead. My life doesn't even matter."[157]
"There's no words to describe this experience. I'd rather be dead," said
22-year-old Jesse A.[158]
Many describe the pain of being separated from family, especially as parents
and other loved ones die during their incarceration. Others write of trying to
keep a positive attitude and make the best of their situation.

Youth
sentenced to life without parole are sentenced to die in prison before they've
really begun life. As a result, the frustration-and in certain cases
despair-regarding the futility of their lives is intense. "It makes you feel
that life is not worth living because nothing you do, good or bad, matters to
anyone. You have nothing to gain, nothing to lose, you are given absolutely no
incentive to improve yourself as a person. It's hopeless," wrote Jason E.[159]

Because California prisons offer little help or tangible
incentives for rehabilitative change, and youth who are able to change do so by
virtue of their growing maturity in combination with sheer will and
determination. In describing his choice to not be violent and focus his
energies on studying history, Saul Paul says, "It takes a lot of patience. I
guess God has been good to me. I live and survive how I can."[160]

The Financial Cost of
Sentencing Youth to Life without Parole in California

Since 1990, California has spent between 66 and 83 million
dollars incarcerating childhood offenders sentenced to life without parole,
according to experts at the University of California at Berkeley and Tulane University.[161]
To incarcerate just those who have already been sentenced until their deaths in
prison will cost the state a total of approximately half a billion dollars,
including funds already spent and not adjusting for inflation.

Newly convicted youth offenders sentenced to life without
parole will cost the state additional sums. Each new youth offender sentenced
to life without parole will cost the state another 2 million to 2.5 million
dollars.

The Perspectives of Victims

The perspectives of victims of crimes are an important
component of a criminal justice system. Human Rights Watch interviewed
individuals who had a family member killed by a teenager and asked for their
opinions on the sentence of life without parole for juveniles.

Victims'
perspectives on sentencing are at times presented as uniformly in favor of life
without parole for juveniles.[162]
This is inaccurate. "Victims' perspectives are as broad as the human race,"
explained Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, a nationally active victims' rights
advocate.[163]
Some victims believe the fact that a perpetrator is a juvenile is not relevant
to sentencing issues. "Adult crime, adult time" was a rallying cry for
increased criminal penalties for youth in the 1990s and reflects the
perspective of some victims who believe youth should face the full panoply of
adult sentences, including life without parole. Other victims, however, believe
that juveniles should be treated differently from adults and that it is wrong
to incarcerate them with no opportunity to later prove they have changed their
lives.

The five people Human Rights Watch interviewed all had
experienced terrible crimes and the resulting pain and loss. Jennifer
Bishop-Jenkins's pregnant sister and her sister's husband were murdered by a
16-year-old. Maggie Elvey's husband was beaten to death at his store by a 15-
and a 16-year-old. Azim Khamisa's son, a 20-year-old college student, was
delivering pizzas when a 14-year-old shot him. Bill Pelke's grandmother was
stabbed to death by a 15-year-old who broke into her home and robbed her.
Melanie Washington's son was killed in a drunken rage by his 17-year-old
friend. While each crime was devastating to family members, each person
interviewed arrived at very different positions on whether it is right to give
a sentence with no possibility of parole to a juvenile.[164] These five
people cannot represent the full spectrum of victim opinions, nor is such a
small sample representative.

Most people we spoke with would probably agree with Bill
Pelke's statement, "The penalty can never be enough for a murder, that's just a
fact. Regardless of what we do to the person who committed the crime, we aren't
going to bring back the person who was killed."[165]

Yet
victim survivors like Pelke are grounded in the belief of redemption; young
people should be given the opportunity to change, and if they do, the
opportunity for parole. Pelke said, "I'm opposed to LWOP for teenagers. To say
that a young person could never be released, regardless of what kind of
transformation they go through-that's wrong."

Pelke also represents those who believe the difference
between juveniles and adults is one reason that youth should not be subject to
life without parole. "We've got to recognize that they are not the same as
adults in terms of mental capacity, and so the [criminal] penalties they face
should be different. We recognize that they are different by not letting them
drink, by not letting them vote. It doesn't make sense to given them the same
criminal penalties as adults."[166]

Azim Khamisa said of teenagers like his son's killer, "Putting
them away for life doesn't accomplish anything. It's barbaric. We have to get
away from 'an eye for an eye'-you know what Gandhi said about that? 'An eye for
an eye will make the whole world blind.'"[167]

Khamisa
believes that the correct analysis involves a picture bigger than just the
crime. "I am a believer in restorative justice," he told Human Rights Watch,
referring to a theory of criminal justice that takes into account the injury
caused by crime to the victim, perpetrator, and community. When reflecting on
the circumstances surrounding his son's murder, he said, "What I see here is a
victim at both ends of the gap. My son was the victim of his assailant, and
this boy [his assailant] was a victim of society." Describing the background of
the boy who killed his son, he explained that he was born to a 15-year-old
mother who was unable to protect him from physical abuse by his father and
sexual abuse from another family member. At age nine the boy was sent away to
live with his grandfather, at 11 he joined a gang. "At 14 years old, he killed
my son." Khamisa believes prison for juveniles should be focused on
rehabilitation. "With juveniles it's do-able. They are still at an age where
you can influence them to be positive role models." For a number of years
Khamisa has been in contact with his son's killer, and finds him to be an
example of the kind of change that can happen for a young person. "Tony is 26,
and he has experienced a total transformation. He has gone from a gang-banger
to someone who is a peacemaker."[168]

Elsewhere on the spectrum are victims for whom the age, the
possibility of change, or other factors about the defendant are not relevant to
the sentence. Their focus is the crime itself. "When they do these violent,
brutal crimes, I don't care what age they are, they need to be held accountable
and that means never getting out of prison," said Maggie Elvey.[169]
"Society seems to think now that it is OK to kill someone and the killer should
expect to get out of prison and walk the face of the earth again. The victim's
family can't expect their murdered loved one to walk on the face of the earth
again. Years ago we learned that if you take a life, you lose yours. But now,
there are no morals, no respect for life, and no accountability for bad choices."

Elvey
believes life without parole is an appropriate sentence for juveniles, even for
those who did not actually commit the murder. When asked about cases in which a
youth was not the trigger person, such as where a youth may have participated
in a robbery during which a codefendant unexpectedly killed someone, Elvey
stands firm in her belief that life without parole is a just sentence and that
it serves as a deterrent to future crime. "The thing is, they go along with a
crowd…They've got to learn that this is what is going to happen."[170]

Christine Ward is the director of the Doris Tate Victims
Bureau in California. Speaking to the issue of parole generally, she explained
why she thinks the focus should be on the crime. "Taking somebody's
life...as far as I'm concerned, you don't get a do-over. That's a done
deal," she says. "That victim doesn't get a second chance."[171]

Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins has more mixed stance on life
without parole for juveniles. "I believe we need life without parole for some
cases, although I think it should be extremely rare," Bishop-Jenkins stated.
"With juveniles, it's a different problem [than with adults]…I'm not going to
argue that this sentence needs to keep being given." She believes that some
people, even juveniles, should never be released and that sentencing options
should include ways to sentence youth to life without parole. "Personally, I
believe we need [life without parole]…for the worst of the worst. There are
some [people] who are so dangerous–I'm talking about someone like Charles
Manson, or like [the offender] in my sister's case." She noted, though, that
some juveniles have been wrongly sentenced to life without parole. "Here in Illinois there are clearly some that were sentenced to life without parole who shouldn't
have gotten that sentence."[172]

Although he opposes life without parole for teens, Pelke
said, "I don't mean they should be automatically paroled." He thinks the
sentencing system should provide options based on whether a person has changed.
"[I]f after a number of years a person becomes rehabilitated and is not a
threat to society, then parole should be an option," he told Human Rights
Watch. "I believe there are some who might never be rehabilitated, never be
reformed, and those people should stay in prison."

Having experienced the murders of four family members over a
20-year period, Melanie Washington explained that she looks for a middle ground
between the needs of victims and what society should do with young offenders.[173]
"When a child commits a crime, there should be a lot more to it than just
throwing him in prison. We need to first evaluate these kids. They're
children," she said. At the same time, she believes that a lengthy sentence for
murder is justified. "It's not right when [judges] don't give a long enough
sentence, like just 10 or 20 years for murder. I can agree that 25 years is
enough." In Washington's view, however, punishment should be balanced with the
opportunity for a prisoner to show he has changed. "If you show yourself
improved, you should be able to get out [of prison.]
If
in 25 years you've not shown improvement-then you don't get out." Washington turned her personal grief into work with youth in California's Department of
Juvenile Justice (formerly known as the California Youth Authority or CYA). She
notes the motivation that the possibility of parole would provide is important.
Speaking of her son's killer, with whom she has had contact with over the
years, she reflects on his rough time in prison. "If he knew he could get out
in 25 years, I think he would be different. It would motivate him." Instead, he
appears to be depressed and without hope. Washington's experience with California's prison systems leads her to conclude that the system does not offer enough to
help prisoners turn their lives around. "We need to do a big overhaul of the
system," she told us.[174]

Sentencing laws vary widely from state to state, and California has stringent sentencing laws. If life without parole was made illegal for
juveniles, California's existing laws would likely accommodate Bishop-Jenkins,
Pelke, and Washington's belief that there needs to be an option to keep some
juveniles in prison. California has a strict parole system. For example, in a
25-to-life sentence for murder, a prisoner would only have the opportunity to
be paroled after serving 25 years. There are no reductions in the minimum time
served for a murder conviction.[175]
Even then, parole is merely an option and won only through the prisoner
demonstrating rehabilitation. In addition, California law provides multiple
ways in which sentences can be ordered to run consecutively.

Bishop-Jenkins and other victims' advocates voice concern
about the effect of parole hearings for family members of victims. "We have to
balance what is too hard on an offender and what's too hard on a victim," she
states. Existing California permits up to five years between parole hearings
for murder cases.

Pelke sums up his perspective with a plea that the bigger
picture be brought into focus. "I understand the pain, I understand the anger
that people feel [toward a perpetrator], but we can't live in that type of
world. We need to figure out how to move forward."[176]

What those Serving Life
without Parole Want to Say to the Families of their Victims

Most of those serving life without parole for crimes
committed as juveniles who responded to Human Rights Watch's survey reflected
on the pain caused to victims and victim family members. When we asked, "If you
could communicate with the family of the victim(s) or any surviving victims,
what would you say?" most took the opportunity to express sorrow and remorse.
The apologies came in the context of no possible benefit to the person writing,
and yet, the vast majority chose to answer the question: 110 of the 127 survey
responses contained apologies. What follows is a representative sample of the
responses.

* * *

I wouldn't know where to begin. To apologize would never be
enough, but perhaps it could be a start. I would want to let all the
individuals affected to know I'm the only one to blame for my actions. I never
intended for the outcome to occur. I would do anything to change it, even
giving my life to replace all those lost and affected. I know that I have been
given a lot of mercy already by being able to continue my life, but there isn't
a day that I don't think about the pain my actions have caused and feel the
guilt of that… I have no joy in the idea that I'm alive and ["Adam"] is not,
and that has nothing to do with me being in prison.

Every night that I lay my head down I think of the wrongs I
have committed. I ask God to convey to my victims my deepest apologies. To
bring peace, happiness and strength to their lives. I'm truly sorry for the
person I was…I offer no excuse for my behavior, only remorse for the wrongs
I've committed. I would not dare ask you to forgive me, however, every day that
I'm alive I will try to be a better person than I was the day before.

I told the family my crime was an accident, when I saw them
in court. I also apologized. I was crying at the time and couldn't say all I
wanted to say, so I wrote the victim's wife a 10 page apology, trying to
explain my actions. It was returned unopened, and I can understand that.

An apology can't bring back the lives that were lost. I have
come to believe in the cause to value and respect life, and such a belief
changed the way I live. Don't take it wrong, but would you give me your
blessing to allow their undeserved deaths to be my motivation to endure and do
right by others?

All I can offer you are words which in no way could repair
the loss you've endured, the pain and suffering that has encompassed your
existence…I've had time to sit and grow up abundantly in the last ten years.
I've seen and felt what pain is. I'm in no way claiming I can relate to the
exacts of your plight, but do know pain and I'm truly sorry for what you and
your family went through and are still going through...I'll end this by stating
again, I am earnestly sorry for your loss!

I would again like to apologize for the loss of a child, a
sibling. Although they could probably never forgive me for what happened, I
would ask for their forgiveness and explain to them the deep sorrow that I feel
and will continue to feel for the rest of my life…I now know where I went wrong
in my life and that I do indeed take full responsibility for my ignorance, my
immaturity, my recklessness, my self-centeredness, my shallowness, my lack of
respect for others, my carelessness, and most importantly my fear of
responsibility in general, and that I am sorry that I did not possess the
internal strength to make the right decisions in my life that would later affect
your lives and everyone in my own.

Acknowledgements

This report was written and researched by Christine Back, Roland Algrant Fellow in the Children's Rights Division, and Elizabeth Calvin, children's rights advocate, Children's Rights Division of Human Rights Watch. Alison Parker, deputy director ofthe US Division of Human Rights Watch,provided
research and analysis on, among other things, racial disproportionality. Ruchika
Budhraja, an intern with Human Rights Watch in Los Angeles, provided
substantial help in research and other support for the report. Kennji Kizuka, associate
for Children's Rights Division provided significant research, administrative,
and other help.

We thank all the individuals serving life without parole and
their families who shared their experiences for this report. We also thank the
family members of victims who shared their experiences and opinions with us. We
are grateful for their willingness to discuss what were often deeply personal
and painful matters.

We are grateful for the work of many volunteers on this
report. They include the members of the Human Rights Watch Young Advocate
groups in Los Angeles and San Francisco: Consuelo Amat, Yvonne Apollonino,
David Attanasio, Sarah Bell, Cal Blake, Edward Cervantes, Heather Cooper,
Deidre Crawford, Tanya Fisher,

Pat Arthur, senior attorney at the National Center for Youth
Law; Dr. Elizabeth Cauffman, professor of psychology and social behavior at the
University of California, Irvine; Jonathan Laba, deputy director of the Pacific
Juvenile Defender Center; Brian Root, Berkeley-Tulane Initiative on Vulnerable
Populations' Fellow; and Cyn Yamashiro, director, Center for Juvenile Law and
Policy also reviewed and commented on the manuscript.

Appendices

Appendix A

Appendix C

Murder arrest data extracted by Human Rights Watch from data
provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reporting
Program: 1990-2005 Arrest by State, (extracted by code for murder crimes,
juvenile status, and race) (on file with Human Rights Watch). Population data
extracted by Human Rights Watch from C. Puzzanchera, T. Finnegan, and W. Kang, Easy
Access to Juvenile Populations Online: US Census Population Data,
State Population Data with Bridged Race Categories 2004, for ages 14-17,
http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/, (accessed January 2, 2008). Certain states are not included in the above figure because of insufficient data
(see footnote 37, above).

[1]
In this report the words "youth," "teen," "juvenile," "youth offender," and
"child" are used to mean someone under the age of 18.

[2]
Human Rights Watch telephone interview with the mother of Brian C., Benicia, California, November 12, 2007. In this report pseudonyms are used for all California inmates. In addition, the prison where they are housed is not identified. These
and other measures are taken to hide their identity to protect them from
reprisals.

[4]
The number of those in the United States serving life without parole for crimes
committed as children is based on several sources: Human Rights Watch and
Amnesty International, The Rest of Their Lives: Life Without Parole for
Child Offenders in the United States, October 2005, http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us1005/index.htm,
pp. 104-107; University of San Francisco School of Law, Center for Global Law
and Practice, "Sentencing Our Children to Die in Prison," November 2007;
data secured by Human Rights Watch from the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation; and research on individual cases in California.

[5]
The first major human rights treaty ratified by the US, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), prohibits this sentence. The
ICCPR's oversight Committee instructed the US to: "Ensure that no such child
offender is sentenced to life imprisonment without parole," and to "adopt all
appropriate measures to review the situation of persons already serving such
sentences." International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
adopted December 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force March 23, 1976, ratified by the United States of America on June 8, 1992, art. 24. In addition, the Convention on the Rights of the Child also prohibits the use of life
without parole for children, and its oversight Committee is urging governments
to ban all life sentences for juveniles. Although the United States has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is a signatory. As
such, it is not generally bound by the terms of the treaty; however, it has the
obligation to refrain from actions which would defeat the treaty's object and
purpose. See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, concluded May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, entered into force January 27, 1980. Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted November 20, 1989, G.A. Res. 44/25, U.N. Doc. A/RES/44/25, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49
(1989), entered into force September 2, 1990, signed by the United States of America on February 16, 1995. The US may also be violating its treaty obligations
under the Convention Against Torture whose oversight Committee told the US that the sentence could constitute "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment." Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, adopted December 10, 1984, G.A. res. 39/46, annex, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984), entered into
force June 26, 1987, ratified by the United States of America on October 21, 1994.

[6]
University of San Francisco School of Law, Center for Global Law and Practice,
"Sentencing Our Children to Die in Prison," November 2007, pp. 4-9. All seven
cases are in Israel.

[7]
Ibid., pp. 10-11. The University of San Francisco School of Law reports that
other than the United States, just 10 countries still have laws permitting life
with no possibility of parole for children: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia,
Belize, Brunei, Cuba, Dominica, Israel, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the
Solomon Islands, and Sri Lanka (which has legislation pending which would
prohibit life without parole for children.) However, all but one of these
countries do not apply the sentence for minors. As of 2007, only Israel had people serving the sentence for childhood crimes. Tanzania, South Africa, Burkina Faso, and Kenya recently confirmed that they will not use the sentence for
people under the age of 18 and have no one in this category serving life
without parole.

[8]
In addition, in US law the determination of whether a punishment is cruel and
unusual under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires
courts to examine "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a
maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958). The US
Supreme Court held that a court may refer "to the laws of other countries and
to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the
Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments." Roper v.
Simmons, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 1198 (2005). See also Atkins v. Virginia,
536 U.S. 304, 317 (2002) (examining international community's rejection of
death penalty for persons with mental retardation); Stanford v. Kentucky,
492 U.S. 361, 370 n. 1(1989) (Scalia, J.) (stating that "the practices of other
nations, particularly other democracies, can be relevant to determining whether
a practice uniform among our people is not merely an historical accident, but
rather so implicit in the concept of ordered liberty that it occupies a place
not merely in our mores, but, text permitting, in our Constitution as well"); Thompson
v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 830 (1988) (Stevens, J., concurring) (noting
global rejection of the death penalty for youth age sixteen or younger); Trop
v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 102 (1958) (finding "virtual unanimity" within
international community that denationalization constituted cruel and unusual
punishment).

[9]
These figures are based on data obtained by Human Rights Watch from the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) through a Public Records
Act request, received April 2007. Independent research by Human Rights Watch
indicates that three of those listed by the CDCR are not, in fact, serving life
without parole for crimes that were committed under the age of 18. Furthermore,
our research has found an additional four individuals who are not on the CDCR
list are serving life without parole for crimes committed at age 17 or younger.
For more discussion, see the description of methodology at page 7.

[10]
Data from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

[12]
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, The Rest of Their Lives: Life
Without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States, October 2005,
http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us1005/index.htm, pp. 27-28. This figure is based
on national research. We do not have California-specific data. California law does not prohibit trying first-time offenders as adults and imposing adult
sentences for murder, including life without parole. By first-time offender we
mean a person without a single adult or juvenile offense.

[13]
Human Rights Watch sent a survey to all persons known to be serving life
without parole for a crime committed under the age of 18 in California. There
were over 130 surveys completed and returned, representing more than half of
the total population. The figures pertaining to living situation at the time of
the crime are based on this data. While the data is based on self-reporting by
the subject group, the cover letter and instructions for the survey made clear
that answers would not be used to help individuals, that Human Rights Watch would
not in any case be able to offer legal or other assistance to individuals
responding to the survey, and, in fact, their answers would be kept
confidential and pseudonyms used in all cases. A copy of the survey is
reproduced in Appendix A of this report.

[15]Fifty-eight
percent reported having completed grades 10, 11, or 12 and an additional 26
percent had finished the ninth grade prior to arrest for the crime that
resulted in a life without parole sentence.

[16]
Juvenile courts have long had mechanisms for transferring youth to the adult
criminal system. The past two decades, however, have seen considerable change
in the law, shaped by an increasingly punitive stance towards teen crime
nationwide. The number of avenues for prosecuting a teenager as an adult in the
United States has increased significantly during this period. See Aaron
Kupchik, et al., "Punishment, Proportionality, and Jurisdictional Transfer of
Adolescent Offenders: A Test of the Leniency Gap Hypothesis,"Stanford Law
and Policy Review, (2003), vol. 14, p. 57. In 2000, California joined the
trend by mandating that teens as young as 14 be prosecuted in criminal court if
accused of committing certain offenses. See California Welfare &
Institutions Code §707.

[18]
National Center for Juvenile Justice, research division of the National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, "National Overviews, State
Juvenile Justice Profiles," 2004,
http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/overviews/transfer3.asp (accessed November 5, 2007). California Welfare & Institutions Code §707.

[20]
Crimes carrying a life without parole sentence upon conviction include: kidnapping
for ransom or extortion with violence, California Penal Code §209(a); murder
with special circumstances, California Penal Code §190.2; perjury in capital
case causing the execution of the defendant, California Penal Code §12; placing
a bomb causing death, California Penal Code §12310(a); treason, California Penal
Code §37; wrecking a bridge, California Penal Code §219; wrecking a train,
California Penal Code §218; and using a weapon of mass destruction causing
death, California Penal Code §11418(b)(2).The law specifically states that only
16- and 17-year-old juveniles may be sentenced to life without parole for
murder, while younger juveniles face a life without parole sentence for other
crimes.

[21]
California Penal Code §190.5(b) specifies that the penalty for a murder
committed with special circumstances by a 16- or 17-year-old is life in prison
without parole.

[22] The
California Court of Appeals in People v. Guinn interpreted the law as
follows: "We believe Penal Code section 190.5 means, contrary to the apparent presumption of defendant's
argument, that 16- or 17-year-olds who commit special circumstance murder must
be sentenced to life without parole, unless
the court, in its discretion, finds good reason to choose the less severe
sentence of 25 years to life." People v. Guinn, 28 Cal. App.4th 1130, 1141 (1994), p.1141.

[23]Ibid., p. 1142. The Court
characterized the scope of judicial discretion in the following way: "The fact
that a court might grant leniency in some cases…does not detract from the generally
mandatory imposition of life without parole as the punishment for a youthful
special-circumstance murderer."

[24]
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) data. This
information indicates that 10 youth offenders are serving life without parole
for crimes other than murder with special circumstances. Human Rights Watch has
not been able to independently confirm the convictions in these cases.

[25]
Based on records from the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, three youth offenders are serving life without parole for
kidnapping under California Penal Code §209(a).

[26]
Human Rights Watch has reviewed the non-published court opinion and several
news articles on the case of Antonio Nunez. According to these sources he was
sentenced to multiple consecutive life sentences as well as life without parole
for his participation in a kidnapping for ransom, a freeway chase, and shootout
with police. His case has been further researched by the Equal Justice
Initiative, which found mitigating factors not considered by the court. See
Equal Justice Initiative, "Cruel and Unusual: Sentencing 13- and 14-Year Old
Children to Die in Prison," November 2007.

[27]
The special circumstances are murders: (1) carried out for financial gain; (2)
committed by a defendant who was convicted previously of murder in the first or
second degree; (3) committed by a defendant who has been convicted of more than
one offense of murder; (4) committed by means of a destructive device, bomb, or
explosive planted or hidden; (5) committed for the purpose of avoiding or
preventing a lawful arrest or attempting an escape from lawful custody; (6) committed
by means of a destructive device, bomb, or explosive mailed or delivered; and
murders in which: (7) the victim was a peace officer; (8) the victim was a federal
law enforcement officer; (9) the victim was a firefighter; (10) the victim was
a witness to a crime who was killed for the purpose of preventing his or her
testimony; (11) the victim was a prosecutor or assistant prosecutor or a former
prosecutor or assistant prosecutor; (12) the victim was a judge or former judge
of any court of record; (13) the victim was an elected or appointed government official
or former government official; (14) the murder was especially heinous,
atrocious, or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity; (15) the defendant killed
by means of lying in wait; (16) the victim was killed because of his or her race,
color, religion, nationality, or country of origin; (17) the defendant was
engaged in, or was an accomplice in, the commission of, attempted commission
of, or the immediate flight after committing the following felonies: (A)
robbery; (B) kidnapping; (C) rape; (D) sodomy; (E) a lewd or lascivious act
upon the person of a child under the age of 14 years; (F) oral copulation in
violation of Section 288a; (G) burglary in the first or second degree; (H)
arson; (I) train wrecking; (J) mayhem; (K) rape by instrument; (L) carjacking; (18)
infliction of torture; (19) poison is used; (20) the victim was a juror in any
court of record in the local, state, or federal system in this or any other
state; (21) the defendant discharged a firearm from a motor vehicle,
intentionally at another person or persons outside the vehicle with the intent
to inflict death; and (22) the defendant was an active participant in a
criminal street gang and the murder was carried out to further the activities
of the criminal street gang. This is a summary of the 22 special circumstances;
for a more detailed explanation see California Penal 190.2.

[28]
We believe the answers to this question are credible for the following reasons:
First, the response to this answer is corroborated in the survey by another set
of answers to unrelated questions regarding codefendants. Over 75 percent of
respondents reported having between one and seven codefendants. That so many
cases involved multiple codefendants supports the finding that many juveniles
are sentenced to life without parole for criminal behavior that did not include
being the "trigger person" or otherwise physically committing a murder. Second,
the question specifically asked what a respondent was convicted of, not
what an individual believed to be the facts in his or her case. In most cases
the narrative portion of the answer made clear whether the respondent had understood
the question. Third, where possible, answers were crossed-checked with
independent research. Finally, other studies have found similar rates for
juveniles convicted of felony murder and aiding and abetting. For example,
nearly half of youth sentenced to life without parole surveyed in Michigan were sentenced for felony murder or aiding and abetting, and 33 percent of youth
life without parole cases investigated in Colorado had convictions based on the
felony murder rule. See American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, "Second
Chances, Juveniles Serving Life without Parole in Michigan's Prisons," 2004,
http://www.aclumich.org/pubs/juvenilelifers.pdf (accessed November 6, 2007), p.
4; Human Rights Watch, Thrown Away: Children Sentenced to Life without
Parole in Colorado, February 2005, http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us0205/,
pp.18-19. Ideally, this data would be crossed-checked with court records,
including trial transcripts and the testimony of witnesses. However, because
the California criminal justice system is county-based, such records are very
difficult to obtain and this level of research was not possible for this
report. See the explanation in the Methodology section.

[29]Adam
Liptak, "Serving Life for Providing Car to Killers," New York Times, December 4, 2007.

[30]
California Penal Code §190.2(d) states that a person who is not the actual killer
but one who acts with reckless indifference to human life and as a major participant,
aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, solicits, requests, or assists in the
commission of a felony which results in the death of someone, will face the
same penalties as if he or she had been the actual killer.

[34]
Under California Penal Code § 190.2(a)(17), "The murder was committed while the
defendant was engaged in, or was an accomplice in, the commission of, attempted
commission of, or the immediate flight after committing, or attempting to commit"
one of 12 felonies. Note that this is different than the general felony murder
rule in which a defendant does not physically commit the murder but just
participated in a felony in which someone else commits the murder. The special
circumstance of committing a murder while engaged in a felony increases the
penalty for any murder committed in the course of certain felonies. As a
result, some people will, then, be convicted under the felony murder rule for
participating in a felony in which a codefendant kills someone, and also will
be subject to the increased penalties because the murder took p0lace while the
defendant was engaged in a felony.

[35]
This data is based on case-specific research conducted by examining the legal
opinions and news articles of 107 of the approximately 227 individuals serving
life without parole in California which identified the special circumstance of
which the teen had been convicted.

[36]Data from the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, reflecting the state's juvenile
life without parole population as of April 2007.

[37] For all calculations introduced
in this section, Human Rights Watch used state population data based on the
2000 Census, estimated for the year 2004 with bridged race categories. We used
population data from 2004 because this provided us with the most fairly
comparable population data to the LWOP sentencing data from states, which we
collected in 2004. We used bridged race categories because most state
correctional systems have not adopted the 31 new racial categories established
in 1997 by the US Census Bureau. Therefore, we believe that using the bridged
race population estimates for 2004 provides the most accurate comparative data.
The National Center for Health Statistics explains that the bridged race data
"result from bridging the 31 race categories used in Census 2000, as specified
in the 1997 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standards for the collection
of data on race and ethnicity, to the four race categories specified under the
1977 standards. Many data systems, such as vital statistics, are continuing to
use the 1977 OMB standards during the transition to full implementation of the
1997 OMB standards. The bridged-race population estimates are produced under a
collaborative arrangement with the U. S. Census Bureau. The bridging methodology
is described in the report,
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/dvs/popbridge/popbridge.htm."

[38]
The rate is per every 10,000 youth ages 14 to 17 in California. For Hispanic
youth this is 1.22.

[40]
In fact, racial disproportionality exists at every stage of the criminal and
juvenile justice systems. Data shows increasing rates of disproportionate
representation of African Americans at every stage of youth contact with the California legal system. African American children and youth are 17 percent of all juvenile
arrests in California. California Department of Justice, Division of California
Justice Information Services, Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis,
"Juvenile Justice in California 2005,"
http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/misc/jj05/dataAnalysis.pdf (accessed October 28, 2007), p. 26. As the stakes go up, so does the disproportionate effect on
young African Americans. Just 6.7 percent of the population, African Americans
are 19 percent of juvenile cases referred to probation for further action, 21
percent of petitions filed, 25 percent of youth detained in secure county
detention facilities, 26 percent of juveniles found "unfit" for juvenile court
by a judge and transferred to adult court, and 34 percent of cases directly
filed in adult court instead of juvenile court. See ibid., pp. 29-65.

[41]
Unfortunately, after several months of research, we were unable to find any
state-based or nationally-based repository of data that tracked convictions of
persons for murder, disaggregated by state, race, and by youth offender status.
Similarly, there is no publicly available data on youth murder arrest rates,
disaggregated by state and race.

[42]
It must be noted that arrest data are notoriously inaccurate as an indicator of
actual criminal participation by different racial groups-youth or adult.

[43]
If rates of conviction are higher for whites than for African Americans, the
disparity in California would be greater than presented here.

[44]
A graph showing the ratio of murder arrest rates for African American and white
youth can be found in Appendix C.

[46]Note
that these rates are comparing FBI murder arrest data from the same years as
juvenile life without parole sentencing data, but these data come from two
different sources and thus do not necessarily track the same individual cases.
We are using FBI murder arrest data as a proxy for criminality in order to
compare criminality and sentencing trends.

[47]
Data from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

[49]According to data from the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 95 of the 227
juveniles serving life without parole are Angelinos.Los Angeles County has 679,815youth ages 13 through 17; the total state population for that age group
is 2,445,306.Population calculations are based on US Census Bureau,
"Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data,"
http://factfinder.census.gov (accessed December 20, 2007).

[50]
Data from the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation.Population
calculations are based on US Census bureau data for children and youth in Los Angeles County ages 13 through 17 found in the Census 2000 data set,
http://factfinder.census.gov (accessed December 20, 2007).

[57]
California Penal Code §190.2 (a)(22) states: "The defendant intentionally
killed the victim while the defendant was an active participant in a criminal
street gang, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 186.22, and the murder
was carried out to further the activities of the criminal street gang."

[60]
Responses to the question "Were any of your codefendants adults?" comprise over
40 percent of all people in California serving life without parole for crimes
committed under age 18. Of these, 68 percent had adult codefendants.

[61]
Survey response from Franklin H., serving life without parole in California, to Human Rights Watch, July 25, 2007.

[63]
In response to a Human Rights Watch survey, respondents listed their
codefendants' ages and sentences, where known. We do not have sufficient data
to fully assess the relative degrees of culpability in each case. We are not
suggesting that adults should get higher sentences than youth merely because
they are adults. This data is based on survey data, which may be inaccurate due
to the memory, perception, or self-perceived self interest of the respondents
.

[64]
Survey response from Jesus N., serving life without parole in California, to
Human Rights Watch, July 24, 2007.

[70]
There were 113 responses to this question, with 52 individuals reporting that
their attorney did not argue for a lesser sentence at the sentencing hearing. Some respondents reported that they did not remember.
It is possible that others did not remember accurately or may not have
understood what was being said in the hearing. Ideally, this data would be
cross-checked with the transcripts of sentencing hearings.

[71]
Eighty-four out of 124 respondents to this question reported that no witness
spoke on their behalf at the sentencing hearing.

[74]
Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Ms. Murray, City of Industry, California, December 6, 2007. Ms. Murray asked that we not use her first name.

[75]
Conservative estimates are that over 33 percent of youth in juvenile
corrections have a disabling condition and are receiving special education
services, almost four times the number in the general population. Disabling
conditions identified include emotional disturbance, learning disabilities,
mental retardation, and other impairments that may impede a person's ability to
help his or her attorney and understand court proceedings. Mary Magee Quinn, et
al "Youth with Disabilities in Juvenile Corrections: A National Survey," Exceptional
Children, vol. 71, no. 3 (Spring 2005), p. 342. This data is likely to
understate the actual prevalence of disabilities because it reflects those who
have been identified and provided with services, not those who are actually
eligible and in need of services. As such it represents the ability of the
schools and agencies working with these youth to identify and provide services
to them. Although this study is of youth in the juvenile justice system and not
the adult criminal system, there is no reason to believe that juveniles who are
transferred from juvenile court to adult court would have a lesser incidence of
these types of impairments.

[78]Human Rights Watch
interview with Michael A., serving life without parole in California, June 29, 2007. Social scientists examining adolescents' understanding of courtroom
procedure found that psychosocial immaturity makes adolescents more likely than
young adults to comply with authority figures. (This study specifically
compared a group of 12- to 17-year-olds with a group of 18- to 24-year-olds,
and its primary findings address competence of younger adolescents to stand
trial in adult court.) As Michael put it, saying "'yes' to everything" a
defense attorney told him is an example of this finding. Thomas Grisso, et al,
"Juveniles' Competence to Stand Trial: A Comparison of Adolescents' and Adults'
Capacities as Trial Defendants," Law and Human Behavior, vol. 27, no. 4,
(August 2003), p. 357.

[79]Human Rights Watch interview with Robert D., serving
life without parole in California, July 13, 2007.

[80] Survey response from Jeff S., serving life without
parole in California, to Human Rights Watch, July 26, 2007.

[82]
Survey response from Robert C., serving life without parole in California, to Human Rights Watch, July 28, 2007.

[83]
The correct statement of law is found in the California Court of Appeals case People
v. Guinn, 28 Cal. App.4th 1130, 1141 (1994), in which the court
held that with good reason a judge may impose the lesser sentence of 25 years
to life in prison.

[84]
In the course of this research, Human Rights Watch came across two cases in
which life without parole was imposed even though the law specifically
prohibited it due to age (for murder, a youth must be 16 or 17 years old and
these youth were 15.) Both cases weresent back for re-sentencing on
appeal. In another case a law professor described to Human Rights Watch a
discussion witha defense attorney who had contacted her with questions
about a case. In the course of the discussion it became apparent that the
attorney believedthe client faced life without parole and was advising
the client as such, when in fact, it is a sentence not permitted for a
14-year-old convicted of murder.

[90]US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes
of Health, National Institute of Mental Health, "Teenage Brain: A Work
in Progress," 2001, http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/teenage-brain-a-work-in-progress.shtml
(accessed November 25, 2007).

[107]
Survey response from Reggie Y., serving life without parole in California, to Human Rights Watch, July 28, 2007.

[108]
Survey response from Cliff D., serving life without parole in California, to
Human Rights Watch, August 21, 2007.

[109]
Survey response from Willis E., serving life without parole in California, to Human Rights Watch, July 25, 2007.

[110]
As described the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, "The
Honor Yard Program at California State Prison-Los Angeles County (CSP-LAC),
created in 2000, is a voluntary program where inmates pledge to follow prison
rules and not engage in gang activity, violence, illegal drugs and disruptive
behavior. Honor Yard inmates submit to mandatory drug testing and participate
in vocational, educational, juvenile diversion, life skills, and other
rehabilitative endeavors." See, "Plan to Keep the Honor
Yard Program at L.A. Prison Demonstrates CDCR's Commitment to Rehabilitation," California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation press release, March 23, 2007, http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/2007_Press_Releases/Press20070323.html
(accessed November 5, 2007).

[111]
Significant barriers to self-improvement opportunities exist; see discussion at
page 57 of this report.

[112]
Seventy percent of respondents to Human Rights Watch's survey list reading as a
top interest, 33 percent named writing, and 22 percent studying. Only 23
percent gave watching television or listing to music as a priority.

[113]
Survey response from Jay C., serving life without parole in California, to
Human Rights Watch, July 26, 2007.

[119]
Human Rights Watch interview with Saul Paul G., serving life without parole in California, July 13, 2007. This interviewee chose his own pseudonym. In describing how he
had changed from the 16-year-old he was when convicted for murder in 1991, he
attributes in large part his success to God. Citing the New Testament in his
correspondence with us, he notes the following verse as especially meaningful
to him: "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child,
I thought as a child; But when I became a man, I put away childish
things." 1st Corinthians 13:11.

[121]
Survey response from Brock I., serving life without parole in California, to
Human Rights Watch. July 30, 2007.

[122]
Survey response from Thomas J., serving life without parole in California, to Human Rights Watch, August 23, 2007.

[123]
Letter from Thomas H., serving life without parole in California, to Human
Rights Watch, July 24, 2007.

[124]
Human Rights Watch interview with Robert D., serving life without parole in California, July 13, 2007.

[125]
About 21 percent of released prisoners who are convicted homicide offenders are
convicted of a new crime (any felony or serious misdemeanor) within three years
of release. By contrast, the reconviction rate of released assault offenders
was 44 percent, burglary offenders was 54 percent, and drug offenders 47
percent. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, "Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994," June 2002, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf
(accessed November 30, 2007) p. 7.

[133]
This percentage is based on Human Rights Watch's survey in which 67 out of 114
respondents reported that they had been the victim of an assault in prison.

[134]
Survey response from Gary J., serving life without parole in California, to
Human Rights Watch, July 26, 2007.

[135]
Ninety-one percent of respondents to the Human Rights Watch survey reported
that they had witnessed violence while in prison. Respondents often provided
longer, narrative answers to explain with more specificity the types of
violence witnessed and the perpetrator. Several did not answer the question and
wrote that they feared retaliation if they answered the question.

[136]
Without being asked directly about the type of violence witnessed, 46 percent
of respondents who wrote a narrative answer describing violence they had
witnessed noted that they had seen stabbings.

[137]
Survey response from Rudy L., serving life without parole in California, to
Human Rights Watch, July 29, 2007.

[138]
Survey response from Bilal R., serving life without parole in California, to
Human Rights Watch, July 24, 2007.

[139]
Survey response from an individual serving life without parole in California who asked that his or her identity be kept completely anonymous to Human Rights
Watch, 2007.

[140]Human
Rights Watch interview with Bill C., serving life without parole in California, January 26, 2006.

[142]
For example, some California inmates who are not serving life without parole
can earn a day off of their sentences for a day of work, thus reducing their
time in prison. Those prisoners will have priority for work and programs that
give credit toward time off of their sentence. See California Penal Code §2932.
This day-for-day calculation is not allowed for people convicted of serious or
violent crimes.

[143]
Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Ross Meier, Sacramento, California, November 14, 2007. See California Code of Regulations, Title 15§3375.(2)(a),
which states, "An inmate serving a sentence of life without possibility of
parole shall not be housed in a facility with a security level lower than Level
IV, except when authorized by the Departmental Review Board."

[144]
Even the two people serving life without parole for childhood crimes interviewed
by Human Rights Watch who are located on the state's Honor Yard serving are
still at a level IV, although their movement and access to work and programs
appears to be much better than those on other yards and in other prisons.

[148]
Survey response from Cesar B., serving life without parole in California, to
Human Rights Watch, August 1, 2007.

[149]
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation lists on its
website the current inmate population and the design capacity of each of the
state's 33 prisons. Twenty-five prisons have near double the population (1.9
times designed capacity) or more than double the intended population. Seven
prisons have almost double the population (1.5 to 1.8 times the designed
population capacity). Only one, the California Medical Center, has prisoner
numbers at or below designed facility capacity. California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, "Adult Facilities and Locations,"2007, http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/index.html
(accessed November 5, 2007). Conditions in California prisons, including those
related to overcrowding, are the subject of several lawsuits and legislation.

[150]
Overcrowding, poor physical conditions, lack of meaningful activities, and
limited contact with visitors can lead to increased violence in prisons. Daniel
L. Low, "Nonprofit Private Prisons: The Next Generation of Prison Management," New
England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, Winter, 2003, p.9. The
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation recognizes that
overcrowding increases the risk of violence and other problems in California prisons. This concern about violence, along with the specter of a
federal judge considering whether an inmate population cap was warranted,
caused the Department to create a plan to reduce overcrowding in
mid-2007. Unprecedented legislative and executive action also was taken. See "California Responds to Federal Courts with Plan to Reduce Prison
Overcrowding," California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, press
release, Press20070516, May 16, 2007, http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/2007_Press_Releases/Press20070516.html (accessed November 25, 2007).

[151]
Letter from Jose Luis C., serving life without parole in California, to Human
Rights Watch, July 25, 2007.

[152]UN Standard Minimum
Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, (Standard Minimum Rules), adopted by the
First United

Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the
Treatment of Offenders, held at Geneva in 1955, and approved by the Economic
and Social Council by its resolution 663 C (XXIV) of July 31, 1957, and 2076
(LXII) of May 13, 1977, art. 77(1) and 78.

[153]
Fifty-two percent of respondents who answered questions about mental health,
disability, or drugs in relation to the commission of the crime reported that
at least one of those factors played a direct role in the crime.

[154]
In survey responses that represent nearly half of all youth offenders serving life
without parole in California, 64 percent report using drugs or alcohol consistently,
that is, four to five times a week or every day. This rate of alcohol use is
more than 11 times than that of the general teen-aged population. The 2006
National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that 6.2 percent of youth ages 12
to 17 in the general population are "heavy drinkers," and that 28 percent of
youth in the general population have used alcohol at least once in the last
month. The same study found that 9.8percent of youths ages 12 to 17 had
used drugs in the last month. US Department of Health and Human Services,
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, "Results from the
2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings," http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k6nsduh/2k6Results.cfm
(accessed October 31, 2007).

[161]
Berkeley/Tulane Initiative on Vulnerable Populations (Patrick Vinck, Ph.D.), April 12, 2007. This figure was based on a general life expectancy in California of 78.2
years. There are no publicly available reliable estimates of life expectancy in
California's prisons. CJL Murray, SC Kulkarni, et al., "Eight Americas:
Investigating Mortality Disparities across Races, Counties, and Race-Counties
in the United States," Public Library of Science Medicine, vol. 3, no.
9, September 12, 2006, www.medicine.plosjournals.org. The initiative's estimate
is based on a juvenile life without parole population of 219; considering the fact
that the population is at least 227, the estimate may be low. Cost estimates
are based on two state estimates of the cost of incarcerating each prisoner per
year in California: $34,150 per year and $43,000 per year. Compare, California
Legislative Analyst's Office, "Criminal Law Primer for California," January 1,
2007, http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOApp/PubDetails.aspx?id=1543 (accessed October
28, 2007), p. 66 (estimating the annual cost to incarcerate a prisoner as over
$43,000); and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, "Facts
and Figures," 4th Quarter 2005, http://www.corr.ca.gov/divisionsboards/aoap/factfiguresarchive/factsfigures4thq2005.html
(accessed October 28, 2007), (stating that the annual cost to incarcerate a
prisoner in California is $34,000).

[162]
In this report the word "victim" is used to mean both the individuals who were
the direct victim of a crime and their families, such as the family of someone
who was murdered.

[163]
Human Rights Watch telephone interviews with Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, Northfield, Illinois, April 26, 2007, and September 27, 2007. Bishop-Jenkins is a
frequent public speaker and activist. She serves on the boards of the National
Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty and Murder Victim Families for Human
Rights. She is the National Program Director for Victims and Survivors for the Brady
Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

[164]
All of the victims interviewed for this report are an activists working on
issues such as victims' rights, anti-violence efforts in communities and
schools, youth mentoring, and criminal justice reform.

[165]
Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Bill Pelke, Anchorage, Alaska, September 27, 2007. Pelke is an anti-death penalty activist and writes and speaks
on the importance of compassion. He co-founded the organization, Journey of Hope…from
Violence to Healing. The organization is led by murder victim family members
who oppose the death penalty.

[167]
Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Azim Khamisa, La Jolla, California, October 3, 2007. Khamisa founded the Tariq Khamisa Foundation, (TKF) an
organization named for his son. TKF works with children across the country on
issues such as gangs, violence, revenge, and the importance of becoming peacemakers.

[169]
Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Maggie Elvey, Sacramento, California, October 4, 2007. Elvey has been a victims' rights advocate for 14 years. She speaks
to community groups, high school students, criminal justice college classes,
and youth at the California Department of Juvenile Justice facilities. Elvey is
a member of the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau, a victims' rights group in California, and currently works for Crime Victims United.

[171]
Julia Reynolds, "Life with Parole Means Life: Chances of release dismal," The
Monterey Herald, October 8, 2007. Rather than speaking more generally about
life without parole for juveniles, Ward was speaking against the release of a
19-year-old man sentenced to 25 years to life in prison for a murder that
occurred in 1979. By 2007 he had served 28 years. Despite an exemplary prison
record with no prison behavior write-ups since 1987, self-improvement efforts,
family and community support, and the person who prosecuted his case urging
release, the parole board denied his parole again in May 2007.

[173]
Human Rights Watch interviews with Melanie Washington, Long Beach, California, August 13, 2007, and October 9, 2007. Washington founded a community outreach
program, Mentoring A Touch From Above, which works with youth who are
incarcerated. She is the recipient of the Points of Light 2001 Presidential
Community Service Award.